dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Environmental Health

(b)(6)
MATTER OF G-0-S-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 4, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an environmental health and safety specialist and researcher, seeks classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and asserts that an exemption· from the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United 
States. See Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or 
Aliens of Exceptional Ability. -
(A) In General. -Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational 
interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, 
professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an 
alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or businessbe sought by an 
employer in the United States. 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree based on his Master's degree in Occupational and Environmental Hygiene from 
The sole issue in contention is whether the Petitioner 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-0-S-
has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the 
national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national 
interest by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the 
United States economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215,217-18 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT), set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a 
request for a national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she seeks 
employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Id at 217. Next, a petitioner must show that 
the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Id Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must 
establish that he or she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an 
available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. Id at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, a petitioner must 
demonstrate a past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. A 
petitioner's assurance that he or she will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to require future 
contributions by the petitioner, rather than to facilitate the entry of a foreign national with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. Id · 
· II. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on April 18, 2014, at 
which time he worked as an environmental health and safety specialist at 
and was also employed part time as a 
research assistant at 
In support of the Form I -140, the Petitioner provided evidence of his credentials, 
including training certificates, his membership in the 
his license as an asbestos inspector in West Virginia, and his certification in 
water damage restoration. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on September 8, 2014, requesting additional 
documentation to establish the Petitioner's eligibility under the analysis set forth in NYSDOT. The 
Petitioner was asked, in part, to confirm that his work "will impart national-level benefits," and to 
show that he has a past record of specific prior achievement with some degree of influence on. the 
field as a whole. 
In response, the Petitioner submitted additional documentation of his credentials and evidence of 
academic scholarships he received, including a 2004-2005 merit scholarship from 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-0-S-
and a 2011-2012 scholarship for $2,500 from the 
He also provided four letters from supervisors and colleagues attesting to his expertise 
and the importance of his work. In a statement responding to the RFE, the Petitioner indicated that 
his research work has focused on improving "evidence-based healthcare and health risk assessment" 
across fields of environmental health including respiratory and toxicological research. 
The Petitioner described one topic of his research as the investigation of the methodology and 
potential biases of animal toxicology studies, which are used to evaluate the safety of chemicals and 
drugs prior to clinical research on humans. He indicated that his "seminal work in this area was a 
cutting edge review of criteria for assessing the methodological and reporting quality of diverse 
types of studies relevant to toxicology and environmental health, including in vivo, in vitro, 
computational models, human and physical-chemical studies." The Petitioner submitted a letter 
from his supervisor on this project, director of the 
in the 
described the Petitioner as an "integral member" of the team carrying out the study, 
stating that he "worked tirelessly with my research team, identifying and retrieving toxicologically 
relevant studies based on pre-determined inclusion/exclusion criteria," and then "distilled key 
information from these studies and summarized this in a cogent and succinct way." He indicated 
that the aim of the project was to "facilitate the appraisal of studies related to human health and the 
environment," and that resulting manuscript will soon be submitted to the 
, an independent consultant in regulatory 
toxicology who has worked with the Petitioner, stated in a separate letter that the Petitioner's efforts 
for "will promote the use of evidence-based approaches to strengthen decision-making in 
safety sciences." 
The Petitioner 
submitted a November 19, 2014, employment letter confirming his ongoing part-time 
employment for In his 
statement, he described his current research, in which he is "assessing the potential of ... zebra-fish 
embryo testing as a predictor of development toxicity in small mammals such as rats and rabbits and 
the eventual clinical translation to humans." attested to the potential significance of 
this research, stating: "If the zebra fish is found as a good predictor, this could replace more 
expensive and laborious mammalian toxicity used for prediction of human health effects." 
The Petitioner also discussed his work as a graduate student on a study examining "how exposures to 
environmental pollutants and allergens may relate to airway inflammation and respiratory illness in 
children with asthma living in the inner city of " conducted by the 
He stated that "[t]he project produced several presentations and publications 
by principal investigators ... at national research meetings, publications and numerous citations by 
asthma researchers in the United States." His supervisor on this research, 
indicated that the Petitioner "worked extensively" with his research team, developing databases for 
environmental results and assisting in environmental sample preparation. attested to the 
need for "medical professionals with outstanding clinical, research, epidemiological and 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-0-S-
environmental health credentials like [the Petitioner's]" and asserted that he is "making significant 
contributions impacting clinical research of asthma and other respiratory disorders." 
Finally, the Petitioner described his work as an environmental health and safety specialist for 
where he conducted respiratory fit-testing and training of employees, conducted asbestos inspections 
and abatement, and was involved in developing safety programs. The Petitioner stated that the 
certifications, licenses, and training he received during his tenure with have given him "the 
expertise needed to enlighten individuals and ensure public safety." East Region 
Director of the 
, served as the Petitioner's mentor during his work for and indicated 
that he "works tirelessly to improve the health of all people in all industries." Each of the submitted 
letters, including also stated that the Petitioner's experience and training "distinctly 
position him to make remarkable contributions to healthcare in the United States." 
The Director denied the Form I-140 on March 16, 2015, finding that the Petitioner had demonstrated 
· the proposed work has substantial intrinsic merit and its benefits are national in scope, but that he 
had not established sufficient influence on his field to meet the third prong of the NYSDOT national 
interest analysis. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the previously submitted evidence 
establishes his eligibility for the benefit sought. In addition, he submits a letter from 
, risk assessment and emergency response coordinator at who describes the Petitioner's 
credentials and expresses the belief that his "blend of experiences will always be needed." 
also states that the Petitioner's "contribution to the environmental, health and safety field ... 
has the potential to reduce overall injury or death rates of workers in the United States." 
III. ANALYSIS 
As stated above, the analysis set forth in the third prong of NYSDOT requires a petitioner to 
demonstrate that he or she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would 
an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. To do this, a petitioner must 
establish "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a 
whole." NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n. 6. 
While the Petitioner submitted letters verifying that he has worked on multiple research studies, the 
record does not include evidence demonstrating that any of these studies have had a degree of 
influence on the field as a whole. With regard to the project reviewing toxicology studies, 
and both made statements regarding its potential significance, but 
indicated that the results had not yet been published and no further documentation was 
submitted to demonstrate its actual influence. Similarly, attested to the potential 
impact of the Petitioner's testing of zebra fish embryos, but no evidence was submitted to 
demonstrate that his findings have in fact had such an impact. These statements about the 
prospective benefits of the Petitioner's projects do not establish that his work has already affected . 
the field as a whole. Although the Petitioner asserted that the asthma study on which he collaborated 
resulted in heavily cited publications and presentations, no documentation was submitted show that 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter ofG-0-S-
he was responsible for any such publications or presentations or to support his assertions regarding 
their influence. Statements made without supporting documentary evidence are of limited probative 
value and are not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Regarding his work as an environmental health and safety specialist, the Petitioner does not assert, 
and the record does not indicate, that his work at resulted in increased occupational or 
environmental health and safety at a national level or otherwise had a degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. Rather, the submitted letters attest to the value ofthe Petitioner's expertise, and the 
demand in the field for individuals with his credentials. Such statements are not sufficient to 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver because they relate to whether similarly-trained 
workers are available in the United States, an issue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of 
Labor through the labor certification process. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. In addition, while 
the Petitioner submitted evidence of awards he has received in the form of academic scholarships, he 
did not demonstrate that those scholarships were awarded based on influence in his field. For these 
reasons, we find the record insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has had some degree of 
influence on the field as a whole. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced 
degree professional or individual of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a 
job offer based on national interest. In this instance, the Petitioner has not shown that his past record 
of achievement is at a level sufficient to waive the job offer requirement which, by law, normally 
attaches to the visa classification sought by the petitioner. While a petitioner need not demonstrate 
notoriety on the scale of national acclaim, the national interest waiver contemplates that his 
influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. More specifically, a petitioner 
"must clearly present a significant benefit to the field of endeavor." Id. at 218. See also id. at 219, 
n.6 (the individual must have "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of 
influence on the field as a whole"). Considering the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor 
certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofG-0-S-, ID# 14872 (AAO Jan. 4, 2016) 
5