dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Hearing Science

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: Âÿÿ Q g 2gj‡ OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
DegreeoranAlienof ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)oftheImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvised
thatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in
accordancewith the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motion canbe found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotiontobefiled within
30 daysof the decisionthat the motion seeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrant
visapetition. Thematteris now beforethe AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal. The
AAOwill dismisstheappeal.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationundersection203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct(the
Act), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asa memberof the professionsholdingan advanceddegree.The
petitionerseeksemploymentasapostdoctoralfellowattheHouseResearchInstitute(formerlyHouse
Ear Institute,or HEI), Los Angeles,California. Thepetitionerassertsthat an exemptionfrom the
requirementof ajob offer, andthusof a laborcertification,is in the nationalinterestof the United
States.Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerqualifiesfor classificationasamemberof theprofessions
holdingan advanceddegree,but that the petitionerhasnot establishedthat an exemptionfrom the
requirementof ajob offerwouldbein thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.
Onappeal,thepetitionersubmitsabrief andnewexhibits.
Beforethefiling of theappeal,attorney inrepresentedthepetitioner. prepareda
responseto a requestfor evidence(RFE),includinga coverletter on letterhead.The
Cerritos,California,return addresson the RFE responsebelongsto ratherthan to the
petitioner.Subsequently,however, didnotprepareor signtheFormI-290BNoticeof Appeal;
the petitioner'spersonalstatementon appealincludesno mentionof legalrepresentation;andthe
petitionermailedtheappealfromBuenaPark,California,whereheresides.FormI-290Badvisesthat
attorneys"mustattachaFormG-28,Noticeof Entryof AppearanceasAttorneyor Representative"to
the appeal,as requiredby the U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices(USCIS)regulationat
8C.F.R. §292.4(a). The appealdoesnot includethis form. Therefore,the recordcontainsno
indicationthat is still thepetitioner'sattorneyof record,andseveralindicationsthatheis not.
TheAAO will thereforeconsiderthe petitionerto be self-represented,andthe term"prior counsel"
shallreferto
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart:
(2) Aliens Who Are Membersof the ProfessionsHolding AdvancedDegreesor Aliens of
ExceptionalAbility.-
(A) In General.- Visasshallbemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho are
membersof the professionsholding advanceddegreesor their equivalentor who
becauseof theirexceptionalabilityin thesciences,arts,or business,will substantially
benefitprospectivelythenationaleconomy,culturaloreducationalinterests,orwelfare
of theUnitedStates,andwhoseservicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or business
aresoughtbyanemployerin theUnitedStates.
(B)Waiverof JobOffer-
(i) . . . theAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorneyGeneraldeemsit to bein
thenationalinterest,waivetherequirementsof subparagraph(A) thatanalien's
Page3
servicesin thesciences,arts,professions,orbusinessbesoughtbyanemployer
in theUnitedStates.
Thedirectordid not disputethatthepetitionerqualifiesasa memberof theprofessionsholdingan
advanceddegree.Thesoleissuein contentioniswhetherthepetitionerhasestablishedthatawaiverof
thejob offerrequirement,andthusalaborcertification,isin thenationalinterest.
Neitherthe statutenor the pertinentregulationsdefinethe term "nationalinterest." Additionally,
Congressdid not providea specificdefinitionof "in the nationalinterest." The Committeeon the
Judiciarymerelynotedin its reportto theSenatethatthecommitteehad"focusedonnationalinterest
by increasingthenumberandproportionof visasfor immigrantswhowouldbenefittheUnitedStates
economicallyandotherwise.. . ." S.Rep.No.55,101stCong.,IstSess.,11(1989).
Supplementaryinformationto regulationsimplementingtheImmigrationAct of 1990,publishedat
56Fed.Reg.60897,60900(November29,1991),states:
TheService[now USCIS]believesit appropriateto leavetheapplicationof this test
as flexible as possible,althoughclearly an alien seekingto meet the [national
interest]standardmustmakea showingsignificantlyabovethatnecessaryto prove
the "prospective national benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as
"exceptional."] Theburdenwill restwith thealiento establishthatexemptionfrom,
or waiverof, thejob offer will be in thenationalinterest. Eachcaseis to bejudged
on its own merits.
In re New YorkStateDept. of Transportation,22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc.Comm'r 1998),hasset
forthseveralfactorswhichmustbeconsideredwhenevaluatingarequestfor anationalinterestwaiver.
First,thepetitionermustshowthatthealienseeksemploymentin anareaof substantialintrinsicmerit.
Next, the petitionermust showthat the proposedbenefitwill be nationalin scope. Finally, the
petitioner seekingthe waiver must establishthat the alien will serve the national interest to a
substantially greater degree than would an available United States worker having the same minimum
qualifications.
While thenationalinterestwaiver hingeson prospectivenationalbenefit,thepetitionermustestablish
that the alien's past recordjustifies projectionsof future benefit to the nationalinterest. The
petitioner'ssubjectiveassurancethatthe alienwill, in the future,servethe nationalinterestcannot
sufficeto establishprospectivenationalbenefit. The intentionbehindthe term "prospective"is to
requirefuture contributionsby the alien, ratherthan to facilitatethe entry of an alien with no
demonstrableprior achievements,andwhosebenefitto the nationalinterestwouldthusbe entirely
speculative.
The AAO alsonotesthat the USCISregulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2)defines"exceptional
ability" as"a degreeof expertisesignificantlyabovethatordinarilyencountered"in a givenareaof
endeavor. By statute,aliensof exceptionalability are generallysubjectto the job offer/labor
certificationrequirement;they arenot exemptby virtue of their exceptionalability. Therefore,
whethera givenalienseeksclassificationasanalienof exceptionalability, or asa memberof the
Page4
professionsholdinganadvanceddegree,thataliencannotqualify for awaiverjust by demonstrating
adegreeof expertisesignificantlyabovethatordinarilyencounteredin hisor herfield of expertise.
Thepetitionerfiled the FormI-140petitionon March 14,2011. In anaccompanyingintroductory
letter,prior counselstated:
[The petitioner's]researchhasalwaysbeenconcentratedon researchissuesmore
relevantto national needsthan are the typical academicprojects. His current
researchis onhumanhearinglossatHouseEarInstitute(HEI). . . .
Specifically,he is investigatingthe mechanismof binauralhearingwith cochlear
implant,amedicaldevicethat. . . allow[s]somedeafindividualsto learnto hearand
interpret soundsand speech. The ultimate goal of his researchendeavoris to
enhancespeechrecognitionperformanceof listenerswith hearingloss.
Prior counselassertedthatthepetitioneris "[a] researcherwith documentedaccomplishments,thus
a considerabledegreeof influencein the scientific community,"who "is uniquelyqualified to
contributeto thenationalinterest."
Five witnesslettersaccompaniedthe petition. was the petitioner'sdissertation
committeechairandresearchadviserat the Universityof Illinois, where is anassociate
professor. stated:
[Thepetitioner]wasanintegralpartof andplayedanimportantrole in ourresearch
group, which is internationallyknown for innovative solutions to searchfor
perceptualcuesfor consonantrecognitionfor normalandhearing-impairedlisteners.
[The petitioner] has been instrumentalin developingmethodsfor quantitative
evaluationof consonantperceptionsmeasuredfrom hearing-impairedlisteners.. .
He representedour group at [professional] meetings. . . . [The petitioner's]
contributionsto our researchefforts were uniquebecausehe was the only graduate
studentthat camefrom the Speechand Hearing Departmentwhereasall our other
studentscamefrom the School of Engineering. Thus he had a unique and crucial
hearingperspectivethatwasessentialfor our group'sresearchefforts.
In my opinion,[thepetitioner]is apromisingyoungscientists[sic] with expertisein
speechperceptionfor patientswith hearingdifficulty asit is directlyrelatedtohealth
andbiomedicalsciences,whichis oneof themajorfocusestheNIH pursuesin [the]
21®'century. In particular,he is oneof thefew whohavedevelopedexpertisein
consonantconfusionanalysisand its utility for hearingaid and cochlearimplant
technology.
Page5
[The petitioner]workedin my departmentas a post doctoralassociatefrom June,
2008to June,2009.
[The petitioner]was a valuablememberof our researchteamthat workedon the
developmentof severalimportantprotocolsanddevicesfor betterhearingandfor
better assessmentof speechcommunicationability. One of the projectswas the
developmentof a direct connect(DC) testinstrumentfor clinical assessmentof the
benefitsof thecochlearimplant(CI). . . .
He conductedlaboratory validation studieswith 15 CI users to establishthe
relationshipbetweenresultsobtainedwith the DC instrumentandresultsobtained
from soundfield tests. [The petitioner]alsoperformedlaboratorystudieswith 50
normalhearingsubjectsto establishthenormsfor eachmeasureof performanceused
in theprotocol.. . .
[Thepetitioner]hasalsobeeninvolvedin the developmentof an automaticspeech
recognition(ASR) systemthat canbe usedin clinical andoccupationalsettingsto
automaticallyassessan individual's speechcommunicationability. This ASR
systemis usedwith the Hearing In Noise Test (HINT). . . . [The petitioner's]
researchfocusedon thefeasibilityof usingASR technologyto administerandscore
theHINT automatically.
stated:
[Thepetitioner]decidedto continuehis researchon cochlearimplantsasa post-doc
researchscientistin my group after the retirementof two yearsago. In the
pasttwo years,[the petitioner]hasbeenone of the key membersof our research
group,andhis essentialcontributionsenabledour projectsto achievemajorprogress
in bilateral andbimodal cochlearimplant researchwithin a shorttime. . . .
Themainfocusof [thepetitioner]in thelastfew yearsis to characterizethebinaural
benefits of cochlearimplant patientswith either two cochlearimplants or one
cochlearimplant combinedwith a hearingaid. . . . [The petitioner]revealedthat
largedifferencesin auditoryprocessingbetweenearsmay reducebinauralbenefit,
andthatbinauralbenefitdependsmorestronglyonthelisteningenvironmentthanon
the speechmaterials. [Thepetitioner]alsotried to identify the speechinformation
processedby ahearingaidthatis additivetotheinformationprocessedby acochlear
implant in noise and quiet. He found that the aided pure-tonethresholdis an
importantfactorandshouldbecarefullyusedin orderto maximizetheadvantageof
the bimodal use in speechperception. Importantly,the bimodal listeningmode
enhancedthetransmissionof bothlow andhigh frequencycomponentsin speech.In
additionto performingoutstandingresearch,[thepetitioner]alsohelpedothergroup
memberswithmanyspeechanalysisandprocessingtools.
Page6
. . [The petitioner] is skilled in speechsignal processingand digital signal
processors.During his post-docresearchin our group,[thepetitioner]becomesan
exceptionalexpert in cochlearimplants,human speechperception,and auditory
psychophysicsresearch.Theserarely foundmultidisciplinaryskills areessentialto
[the petitioner's]successin researchon cochlearimplantsandsethim apartfrom
otherresearcherswith a similarbackgroundin thesamefield.
ates:
[Thepetitioner's]presentwork is to understandthemechanismfor binaural(hearing
with two ears)benefit in speechrecognitionfor bilateral CI users.. . . [The
petitioner's]researchwill alsoleadto a betterunderstandingof binauralprocessing
in electrichearing,which providesa greatpotentialfor betterspeechperception,
particularlyin noise.. . .
Few studieshave been conductedto investigatethe effects of asymmetricor
symmetricperformanceonthebilateraladvantagein electrichearing.Thefunctional
relationship between bilateral advantageand the performancedifference between
earsremainsunclear. Evaluatingsuch a relationshipis important becausethe
mechanismof bilateral auditorybenefitmay be relatedto this relationship. [The
petitioner's]recentmanuscript(acceptedwith minor revision at the International
Journal ofAudiology quantifiedthis relationship.. . .
Anotherareaof [the petitioner's]research,a searchfor the sourceof the bimodal
hearing(CI on onehear[sic] andHA ontheotherear),is alsoimportant.. . . When
the benefit of bimodal hearing in speechrecognition is addressed,the audiometric
thresholdof the acousticearshouldbe consideredasa covariate.. . . Theresultsof
[the petitioner's] study (acceptedfor publication [in] the Journal of Speech
LanguageHearing Research)suggest. . . that aided hearingthresholdsshouldbe
carefully usedin orderto maximizethe advantageof the bimodal use in speech
perception.. . .
[The petitioner's]combinationof knowledgeandskills in behavioralmeasure[sic]
andengineeringis rareto find amonghispeers.
Theonly initial witnessto haveno evidentconnectionto thepetitioneror ____
associateprofessorat Ohio StateUniversity. stated:"Oneof [thepetitioner's]most
substantialcontributionsthusfar hasbeenthe developmentof a methodto analyzeconfusions
associatedwith the basic units of American English (consonants)." credited the
petitionerwith collecting"data[that] . . . havefurtheredour understandingof temporalprocessing
deficitsin hearing-impairedlisteners,whichin turncanleadto thedevelopmentof cochlearimplant
processorsthatarebetterableto handletemporalinformation. This hasthepotentialto ultimately
improvespeechrecognition,particularlyin noise." added:
Page7
In additionto thesecontributions,[the petitioner]contributedto a relatively new
remedyfor hearingloss:Acoustic/ElectricStimulation(EAS) [sic]. Themajorityof
the 36 million Americanswith hearinglosshavetheir greatestdeficitsin the high-
frequencyregion. In this case,significantbenefit in speechperceptioncan be
obtainedby combiningacousticstimulationin the low-frequencyregionthrougha
hearingaidandelectricstimulationin thehigherfrequencyregionthroughacochlear
implant. The often dramaticimprovementin speechintelligibility when adding
acousticand electric stimulation occurseventhough the acousticstimulation alone
oftenprovideslittle or no intelligibility.
I reviewed[thepetitioner's]researchmanuscriptasAssociateEditorfor theJournal
of Speech-LanguageHearing Research. [The petitioner] provided a further
examinationof the benefit of EAS, with regard to the particular speechcues
involved. The results suggestthat voicing cuesare more importantthan other
researchershaveargued,becauseit may be the mostrobustof the cuesavailable.
[Thepetitioner]alsoarguedthat anothercue,first andsecondresonantfrequencies,
contributessignificantlyto theEASbenefit. This is animportantfinding becauseit
is generallybelievedthatthesecuescannotbetransmittedby theEASconfiguration.
Thepetitioner'scurriculumvitaeidentifiedthreepublishedarticlesandthreemanuscriptssubmitted
for publicationin variousjournals,alongwith numerousconferencepresentations.Thepetitioner
submittedcopiesof thepublishedarticlesandseveralconferenceabstracts.
Thepetitionersubmitteda copyof an electronicmail message,inviting the petitionerto review a
manuscriptsubmittedto IEEE Transactionson BiomedicalEngineering. The author of the
electronicmail messageis longtimeHEI researcherProf whoseawarenessof the
petitioner'swork doesnot indicateareputationor influencebeyond 'tself.
On June22, 2011,the directorissueda requestfor evidence,instructingthe petitionerto "submit
copies of any published articles by other researchersciting or otherwise recognizing" the
petitioner's published work, as well as "additional documentaryevidence" of eligibility for the
waiver. In response,the petitionersubmitteda copyof oneciting article- co-authoredby Prof.
acceptedfor publicationten daysbeforethe filing date,andpublishedin June
2011. The citationwaspart of an aggregatecitation. To supportthe assertionthat "BiCI users
showa widerangeof sensitivitiesto interauraltiming differences(ITD) thatatbestarestill poorer
than NH listeners," Prof. and his co-authorscited eight articles, including the petitioner's
article. Theearliestcitedarticlein thegroupcitationdatedbackto 1993. This singlecitationdoes
notindicatethatthepetitioner'swork standsoutfromthatof otherqualifiedresearchers.
Prior counselstatedthat "peershavemaderequest[sic] for [the petitioner's]publishedwork or
work in progress,"andimpliedthattheserequestsaresomehowcomparableto citations. OnApril
27,2011 sentthepetitioneranelectronicmail
messagethatread:
Page8
I do rememberthat your researchinterestswere closely alignedto thoseof my
laboratory.Pleasedropmeanoteto let meknowwhatnewknowledgeyoufoundin
bilateralandbimodalareasyouarepursuing.PleasesendusyourIJAbilateraland
JSLHRbimodalpapersyoumighthave,andgivemybestto
Prof. presumablyreferred,above,to It is clearfrom the above
wordingthatProf. wasnot yet awareof theresultsof thepetitioner'slatestwork. Rather,
he inquired as to "what new knowledge"camefrom thoseendeavors. Prior counselfailed to
explain how such an inquiry is comparableto citation (in which a researcheris alreadyawareof
given information, andrepeatsthat informationwhile identifying its source).
A May 6, 2011,messagefrom jointly addressedto the petitionerandtwo co-
authors,read:
I am a PhD studentat the Universityof Southampton.I readyour paper. . . and
found it very interesting. The useof interauraltime andlevel differencecuesby
bilateralcochlearimplantusers[sic]
Do you havethe headrelatedimpulseresponsesin which the receiversare the
microphonesof cochlear-implantprocessors?If youhaveit couldyoupleasesendit
to me?
Theintentbehindthe sentencefragmentat the endof the first quotedparagraphis not clear. The
secondparagraphis not acommentaryonthepetitioner'swork, butratherarequestfor information
about,anddatafrom, experimentsthat the petitioner'sgroupconducted.The petitionerdid not
show that this request,from nearly two months after the petition's filing date, indicates a
demonstrableachievementwith somedegreeof influence on the field as a whole as of that filing
date. An applicantor petitioner must establishthathe or sheis eligible for the requestedbenefit at
thetimeof filing thebenefitrequest.8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).
The petitioner submitteddocumentationshowing acceptanceof additional papersfor publication,
and more invitations to perform peerreview, after the petition's filing date. This evidenceshows
the petitioner'scontinuedactivity as a researcherandpeerreviewer,but the existenceof these
materialsis not, itself, presumptiveevidenceof eligibility for thewaiver.
A newletterfrom read,in part:
RecentlyI reviewed[thepetitioner's]researchmanuscript. . . asanassociateeditor
for theJournalof AcousticalSocietyof America- ExpressLetters. This work was
of outstandingqualityandoneof themorestraightforwardeditorialassignmentsthat
I've hadfor awhile. . . . Thistopicis importantbecausetheinsertiondepthachieved
acrossearsin bilateralcochlearimplantmaybe different. Hencetherearebinaural
mismatchesin frequencyacrossears,leadingto distortionof speechinformation,
resultingin different speechpatternsfor eachear. This spectralmismatchthat is
Page9
attributedto differentinsertiondepthsmight be oneof the sourcesof variability in
binauralbenefitsfor bilateralcochlearimplantusers.
. . . Basedon [his] findings,[thepetitioner]arguedthat binauralbenefitwasmore
dependenton the presenceof similar speechinformation than similar unilateral
performancesacrossears.Thisdistinctionis importantfor two reasons.Thisfinding
providessupportingevidencefor anexistingbinauralmechanismfor normalhearing,
redundancy,referringto hearingidenticalinformationat eachear. This finding also
provides a basis for excluding a possible integration mechanism,referring to
combiningdifferent speechinformationfrom eachear for binauralmechanismin
bilateral cochlearimplants. This study theorizedthe binaural mechanismfor
bilateral cochlearimplant uses. Clinically this result suggeststhat the binaural
benefitcanbe maximizedby optimizingboth cochlearimplantsto providesimilar
patternsof speechinformation, not optimizing eachcochlearimplant for better
performance.
As a youngscientist,[thepetitioner]hasgreatpotentialto generatenewknowledge
andapproachesfor betterunderstandingperceptualmechanismsfor binauralelectric
hearing.
Thedirectordeniedthepetitionon September12,2011. Thedirectorstated:
Thesubmittedevidencedoesnot setthe self-petitionerapartfrom otherresearchers
in his field. The evidenceshowsthe self-petitionerhasaccomplishedwhat most
otherresearchersaccomplish;that is producepublishedarticles,presentfindingsat
conferences,andpeer-reviewjournal articles.
. . . It can be expectedthat if the self-petitioner'spublishedresearchwas truly
significant,it wouldbewidely cited.. . .
[N]oneof thelettersmentiontheself-petitioner'sresearchhasactuallyhadanimpact
and where it had an impact. Rather,the letters speakof the potential of the self-
petitioner'sfindings and research.The self-petitioner'sfindings do not appearto
haveyethadameasurableinfluencein thelargerfield.
Onappeal,thepetitionerstates:
Althoughmy careeris in a relativelyearlystage,I am quickly gainingrespectand
acceptancein my field.
• My publishedwork hasbeenrecognizedin a very shortperiodof timeby
peerseitherin theform of citation,onlinedownloads,requestsfor published
works,or stronglettersof support.
• I amoneof themostproductiveresearchersat theHouseResearchInstitute.
This year, I havepublishedfour articles,submittedthreemanuscriptsfor
Page10
publication,andpreparedtwo manuscripts.This is clearlyan outstanding
accomplishmentin . . . comparisonwith othersin thesameearlycareerstage.
• I havebeeninvited to review for threeinternationaljournals in my field,
includingtheJournalof AcousticalSocietyof America- ExpressLetter,. . .
'the leadingsourceof theoreticaland experimentalresearchresultsin the
broadinterdisciplinarysubjectof sound."
The petitioner submitsa printout of the "Top 20 Most DownloadedArticles" from the Journal of
theAcoustical SocietyofAmerica for August 2011. An article by the petitioner is tenthon the list.
Nearlyall of thelistedarticlesareamongthenewestarticlesto appearin thatjournal. Eighteenof
the 20 articles,includingthe petitioner'sarticle,appearedin Volume 130,Issue2 of thejournal.
(Thearticleatthetopof thelist datesfrom 1993;thearticleatthebottomis fromtherecentVolume
129,Number6.) It appearsthattheheavydownloadingof thesearticlesowesmoreto their recent
publicationthanto theirintrinsicsignificance.In otherwords,it appearsthatresearchersdownload
newarticlesastheyappear,meaningthat,atanygiventime,themost-downloadedarticleswill also
tendto bethenewest.
Theonly newcitationevidencesubmittedon appealconsistsof two unpublishedstudentpapers:a
master'sthesisfrom DalhousieUniversity, and a doctoral dissertationfrom the University of
Illinois. Thelatterpaperrepeatedlycitedanarticlethatthepetitionerwrotewith under
whomhehadstudiedattheUniversityof Illinois.
Thepetitioneralsosubmitsmessagescontainingadditionalrequestsfor copiesof his publishedor
presentedwork. Becausetheserequestershavenot yet seenthe work they arerequesting,such
requestsarenot persuasiveevidenceof the impact of the petitioner's work. The petitionersubmits
nothingon appealto showthatthenumberof requests,or of citationsin dissertationsandtheses,is
particularlyhigh.
Thepetitionerstatesthatthe appealincludestwo newwitnessletters,but therecordcontainsonly
one such letter. identified earlier, describes the petitioner's recent research
findings andconcludes:
[The petitioner's] finding is significant theoreticallybecauseit can explain why the
level of theresidualhearingthresholdis poorly associatedwith thebimodalbenefit
andbecauseit mightprovideanexplanationfor variabilityin bimodalbenefitacross
subjects. As a clinical application,it is possibleto developa clinical protocolto
predictwhowill orwill notbenefitfrombimodalfitting.
The petitionerstatesthat the secondletter on appealis from CEO of House
ResearchInstitute. Thepetitionercalls an"independent"witness,althoughheis a top
executiveof thepetitioner'semployer. letterappearsto bemissingfrom therecord.
Thepetitionerdescribesaletterthatis similarto othersin therecord,includingProf. new
letter. For example,the petitionerstatesthat letter indicatesthat the petitioner's
"finding is alsosignificantclinicallybecause(1) it will providea basisfor predictingwho will
benefitfrom bimodalhearing,and(2) alsoprovidea rehabilitationframeworkfor betterbimodal
Page11
benefit." This assertion,which the petitioner attributesto reads like a close
paraphrasingof letter. Thus,thepetitioner'sowndescriptionof letter
doesnotindicatethattheletterwouldhaveaddedmuchof substanceif it werepresentin therecord.
TheBoardof ImmigrationAppeals(BIA) hasheldthattestimonyshouldnotbedisregardedsimply
becauseit is "self-serving."See,e.g.,Matter of S-A-,22 I&N Dec. 1328,1332(BIA 2000)(citing
cases).The BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage,but require the introduction of
corroborativetestimonialanddocumentaryevidence,whereavailable." Id. If testimonialevidence
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greaterneed for the petitioner to submit
corroborativeevidence.Matterof Y-B-,21I&N Dec.1136(BIA 1998).
The opinions of expertsin the field are not without weight and have receivedconsideration
above. USCIS may, in its discretion,use as advisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedas expert
testimony. SeeMatter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However,
USCISis ultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthe final determinationregardingan alien'seligibility
for the benefit sought.Id. The submissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthe petition is not
presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay,asabove,evaluatethecontentof thoselettersasto
whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. USCISmayevengive lessweightto anopinionthatis
not corroborated,in accordwith otherinformationor is in anywayquestionable.Seeid. at795;see
alsoMatter of V-K-,24 I&N Dec.500,502n.2 (BIA 2008)(notingthatexpertopiniontestimony
doesnot purportto be evidenceasto "fact"). SeealsoMatter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158,165
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r
1972)).
Most of the witnesseshaveworkedwith the petitioneror with his mentors. Thewitnesseshave
offered explanationsasto how thepetitioner's researchrepresentsanimportantadvancein the field,
but the record contains little evidence that the petitioner's work had a significant impact or
influenceon the field at the time he filed the petition in March 2011. The assertionthat the
influencewill becomeevidentat a later date amountsto speculation. The recordcontainsno
evidence that the petitioner's findings have had a practical impact on treatment protocols for
hearing-impairedpatients. Assertionsaboutthe potentialimpactof the petitioner'sfindingshave
little weight without evidencethatthepotentialhasbeenrealized.
As is clearfrom a plain readingof the statute,it wasnot the intentof Congressthateveryperson
qualifiedto engagein aprofessionin theUnitedStatesshouldbeexemptfromtherequirementof ajob
offerbasedon nationalinterest.Likewise,it doesnot appearto havebeentheintentof Congressto
grantnationalinterestwaiversonthebasisof theoverallimportanceof agivenprofession,ratherthan
on the meritsof theindividualalien. On thebasisof theevidencesubmitted,thepetitionerhasnot
establishedthata waiverof therequirementof anapprovedlaborcertificationwill bein thenational
interestof theUnitedStates.
Theburdenof proof in theseproceedingsrestssolelywith the petitioner. Section291of the Act,
8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.