dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Hematology/Oncology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: MAY 1 1 2009 
SRC 07 221 50825 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
JYW~ 
f John . Grissom 
y~ctin~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner is a hematology/oncology fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. The petitioner 
asserts that an exemption fiom the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the 
national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not established that 
an exemption fiom the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits arguments fiom counsel. 
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) Ln 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 business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that. the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner 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). 
Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly 
an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Cornrnr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, 
it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must 
be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver 
must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would 
an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest 
cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used 
here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an aIien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. 
We also note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. @ 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree 
of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offerllabor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
We note that, according to US. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records, the petitioner 
simultaneously filed two Form 1-140 petitions. One, with receipt number SRC 07 221 50825, relates to 
the present proceeding in which the petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver. In the other petition, with receipt 
number SRC 07 22 1 54974, the petitioner sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the 
sciences under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The petition was denied on June 5,2008. 
After the denial of the present petition in September 2008, the petitioner submitted one I-290B Notice 
of Appeal, with one fee. On the Form I-290B, counsel indicated that the appeal pertained to the petition 
denied on September 15,2008 with receipt number "SRC0722150825." Counsel's cover letter reads, in 
part: 
Appeal of denied EB-1 extraordinary ability petition - SRC 07 221 50825 
Dear District Director [sic], 
Please be advised that the above-named petitioner now wishes to timely appeal the 
decision to deny her I- 140 for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 
(Counsel's emphasis.) 
 The accompanying brief begins with the heading: "Appeal of denied 
national interest waiver EB2 petition - SRC 07 221 50825" (counsel's emphasis). Thus, in the 
context of a single appeal, counsel has referred to the denials of both petitions. Because each 
petition initiates a separate, independent proceeding, a single Form I-290B, with one fee, cannot be 
used to appeal multiple decisions. USCIS is statutorily prohibited fi-om providing a petitioner with 
multiple adjudications for a single form with a single fee. Pursuant to section 286(m) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 5 1356, USCIS is required to recover the full cost of adjudication. In addition to the statutory 
requirement, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25 requires that USCIS recover 
all direct and indirect costs of providing a good, resource, or service.' Therefore, we cannot consider 
this filing to represent a properly filed appeal to both denials. 
Because the appeal consistently shows receipt number SRC 07 221 50825, the AAO considers the 
appeal to pertain to that petition, and not to the separate "extraordinary ability" petition filed with 
receipt number SRC 07 221 54974. USCIS records do not reflect the petitioner's filing of a second 
Form I-290B. Therefore, we conclude that the petitioner has not appealed the denial of her 
"extraordinary ability" petition, and we will limit consideration here to her "national interest waiver" 
petition. 
In arguments accompanying the initial submission, counsel stated: 
Many of the groundbreaking research studies conducted by [the petitioner] have 
influenced physicians beyond her geographic situation. . . . [The petitioner] has 
conducted several cutting edge and highly influential clinical and scientific research 
studies that have garnered her much success and acclaim through subsequent publication 
in the world's most prestigious journals and presentations given before other leading 
senior and junior experts in Hematology and Oncology. . . . 
Much of [the petitioner's] clinical and scientific research has earned widespread acclaim 
through publication in several leading journals. Most notable is the fact that [the 
petitioner] has authored significant original studies in some of the most often cited and 
highest impact factored journals in the field of cancer research. . . . [One of the 
I 
 See htt~:llwww.whitehouse.gov/omblcircularsil. 
Page 5 
petitioner's articles] has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Clinical 
Oncology. This peer-reviewed journal not only boasts an impact factor of 11.810 
making it the #1 international journal in clinical oncology, but it is also the most cited 
peer-reviewed publication in the field with a circulation of 16,100. The simple fact that 
[the petitioner's] studies have been accepted for publication in hs venerable journal is 
indicative of her unique status in our medical community. . . . 
[The petitioner's] extraordinary ability is evidenced through her published study entitled, 
b'Prevalence of moderate or severe left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in persons with 
suspected myocardial ischemia with and without an abnormal adenosine or exercise 
sestamibi stress test or prior coronary revascularization." This groundbreaking work in 
the field of pulmonology has been cited in leading national and international journals by 
other experts in the field who have used [the petitioner's] results in their own research. 
The significance of [the petitioner's] work is also measured by the fact that the above 
manuscript was published in the premier journal Chest. This peer-reviewed journal is 
considered "the" authoritative source for the most advanced research in clinical chest 
medicine by physicians and researchers fiom around the world. . . . 
Counsel also stated that another of the petitioner's articles "was published in the premier journal 
Chest" and "has been cited . . . by other experts in the field." (This same passage, identically 
worded, appears in a witness letter and will be discussed further in that context.) Counsel is clearly 
aware of the value of citation of published articles, noting that the Journal of Clinical Oncology is 
"the most cited peer-reviewed publication in the field." The impact factor of the journal is 
calculated fiom the average citation rate of articles in that journal. It does not follow that any one 
article in the journal has comparable impact. A journal's impact factor does not establish the 
reception of a given article; it is exactly the reverse. Highly-cited articles raise a journal's impact 
factor, while articles with few or no citations lower it. Here, the petitioner's article had not yet been 
published as of the filing date. A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future 
eligibility or after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Cornrn. 1971). A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an 
effort to make a deficient petition conform to CIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 
169, 176 (Assoc. Cornrn. 1998). Counsel stated only that one of the petitioner's articles "has been 
accepted for publication in the Journal of Clinical Oncology." It is obviously premature to discuss 
the impact of a still-unpublished article. 
For all the discussion of the petitioner's published work, the petitioner's initial submission did not 
include copies of her published articles, or even documentary proof that they were, in fact, 
published. 
 The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
 See Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 
1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The section of the petitioner's 
initial submission marked "Publications and Presentations" consists only of printouts from electronic 
slide presentations. 
Page 6 
Counsel stated: "There is already an existing shortage for Hematologists-Oncologists and the prospect 
of a near future resolution is very grim." A shortage of qualified workers in a given field, regardless of 
the nature of the occupation, does not constitute grounds for a national interest waiver. Given that the 
labor certification process was designed to address the issue of worker shortages, a shortage of qualified 
workers is an argument for obtaining rather than waiving a labor certification. See Matter of New York 
State Dept. of Transportation at 2 15,2 18. 
There exists a statutory provision at section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for certain physicians when the 
Department of Health and Human Services has officially designated a shortage area, but the petitioner 
has made no attempt to follow the provisions set forth in that subsection of the Act, or to conform to the 
corresponding regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.12. 
of the New York Chapter of the American College of Physicians and Chief of General Internal 
Medicine at Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York (affiliated with New York Medical 
College), stated: 
I was the Residency Training director for Internal Medicine for all of [the petitioner's] 
training, so I know the candidate extremely well. . . . 
A review of [the petitioner's] original and significant research publications and 
presentations serves as an indicator of her extraordinary ability as a physician as well as 
how her works have contributed greatly to her field of medicine as a whole. . . . As a 
foremost physician, [the petitioner] has utilized her unique clinical background in the 
fields of Internal medicine, Hematology and Oncology to conduct cutting-edge studies 
that have lead [sic] to groundbreaking advances and improvements in the field. 
One such studv is [the petitioner's] breakthrough research that significantly 
contributed to the advancing field of colorectal cancer by studying whether 
bevacizumab should be continued beyond its progression. . . . In demonstrating clearly 
for the first time the proper amounts of the drug that should be administered and in 
showing that previously the drug has been administered in excessive amounts, this novel 
work will no doubt save at the very least tens of millions of dollars to the healthcare 
system. . . . 
This extremely significant first of its kind study has been accepted for publication 
in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. . . . 
[The petitioner's] extraordinary ability is evidenced through her published study entitled, 
bbPrevalence of moderate or severe leJ2 ventricular diastolic dysfunction in persons with 
suspected myocardial ischemia with and without an abnormal adenosine or exercise 
sestamibi stress test orprior coronary revascularization." This groundbreaking work in 
the field of pulmonology has been cited in leading national and international 
Page 7 
journals by other experts in the field who have used [the petitioner's1 results in 
their own research. The significance of [the petitioner's] work is also measured by the 
fact that the above manuscript was published in the premier journal Chest. This peer- 
reviewed journal is considered &&the" authoritative source for the most advanced 
research in clinical chest medicine by physicians and researchers from around the 
world. . . . 
[The petitioner's] extraordinary research acumen, and numerous appointments as a 
speaker and teacher, as well as her publications in the world[']s most prestigious 
journals and numerous invitations to present her groundbreaking cases and studies 
establishes her as a hematologist and oncologist of extraordinary ability. Her expertise 
is widely recognized and is depended upon by leaders in the medical community. 
(Emphasis in original.) The passage regarding the petitioner's claimed article in Chest is identical to 
a passage from counsel's opening letter, apart from the various emphases in letter. As 
noted previously, the petitioner's initial submission did not include a copy of the above articles, or 
documentation showing their publication in, respectively, the Journal of Clinical Oncology or Chest. 
The petitioner also submitted no evidence to support the assertion that her claimed Chest article "has 
been cited . . . by other experts in the field." Going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
Program at Westchester Medical Center, stated that the petitioner "has garnered an impressive 
reputation throughout the medical community," and that h& findings regarding the correct dosage 
regimen of bevacizumab "is an incredible accomplishment that has not been matched bv anyone in 
the field of colorectal cancer" (emphasis in original). He added that the petitioner "has the critical role 
of reviewing the performance of junior and senior housestaff in the department of medicine. . . . She 
also teaches the housestaff in insertion of central catheters, paracentesis and bone marrow biopsies." 
did not explain why these duties are hallmarks of "international acclaim rather than 
routine teaching duties. 
"is an extraordinary physician scientist whose expertise in hematology/oncology combines with a 
multitude of her other specialized clinical and scientific rocedures to allow her to collectively 
surpass 99% of those in her field" (emphasis in original). stated that the petitioner has 
succeeded in making difficult diagnoses that other physicians could not make, and "is also one of the 
countries [sic] foremost experts in treatment and dosage of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal 
cancer" (emphasis in original). 
[The petitioner] has been hard at work in attaining an extraordinary high degree of 
expertise in the fields of hematology and oncology. . . . She is part of a small minority of 
oncologists and hematologists who strive to achieve an extraordinary level of expertise 
in her clinical and diagnostic abilities. Only the top physicians choose to specialize in 
hematology and oncology, as the specialty is one of the most complex and difficult in all 
of medicine. Among this elite group of hematologists and oncologists, [the petitioner] is 
one of the best. 
stated that the petitioner "is also an extraordinary medical researcher in finding new 
cancer therapies," but she did not elaborate by identifying; any specific contribution or accomplishment 
-- -- 
by the petitioner. 
 cited no ehdence or source to support the claim that the petitioner's 
choice of medical specialties is, itself, evidence of her superiority in the field. 
- Fellowship Program Director of HematologylOncology at the Mayo Clinic, 
discussed the petitioner's medical specialty and warns of a "critical shortage" of such specialists, but 
provided littleinformation specific to the 
 except that her ''research in high dos&mitoxantrone 
in AML and bevacizumab in treatment of colorectal carcinoma is a unique distinction that places her in 
an elite class of hematology-oncologists in the United States." Regarding the petitioner's findings 
relating to bevacizumab dosage, did not indicate that these findings were so influential 
that they have been widely implemented throughout the field of medicine. Rather, he stated that "only 
a handful of services in the United States offer this mode of investigation of dosage (emphasis in 
original)," and that trials will take place at some unspecified point in the future. This seems to imply 
that what has been praised as the petitioner's crowning achievement is still being tested for efficacy. 
Many of the initial witness letters share a heavy use bold and underline type to emphasize certain 
passages, as well as hyperbolic praise for the petitioner's achievements coupled with minimal details 
about what those achievements actually entailed. While the witnesses maintain that the petitioner has 
quickly climbed to the pinnacle of her specialty, and thereby earned "international acclaim," all of the 
witnesses are the petitioner's superiors at entities where she has worked and received ongoing training. 
On December 17,2007, the director issued a request for evidence, which read, in part: 
Please submit documentary evidence of the exact influence the beneficiary's work has 
had on his [sic] specialty or on the field in general. If the beneficiary's research results 
have been cited by others in this field, submit copies of all published works of authors 
who cite the petitioner's work, or other evidence, such as copies of citation indices, 
showing numbers of citations. Specifically, evidence regarding the beneficiary's 
publications is missing from the initial submission. . . . 
Please describe specifically all of this petitioner's exact prior achievements and how 
these have influenced his [sic] field. . . . [A111 of the reference letters submitted as initial 
evidence appear to have some type of prior association with the beneficiary. How have 
experts or researchers in the field no[t] associated with the beneficiary used the research 
of the beneficiary in their own research and studies? 
In response to the notice, with regard to the specific request for "evidence regarding the beneficiary's 
publications," counsel stated: "Please see [the petitioner's] resume and attached letter from the Specialty 
Clinic documenting that she has published in several top journals including the Journal of clinical 
oncology and the Journal of the American medical Association [sic]." The petitioner did not explain 
why she did not provide copies of the actual articles, nor did she demonstrate that "the Specialty Clinic" 
has the authority to attest to the petitioner's publication of articles in the aforementioned journals. 
In response to the director's instruction to "submit copies of all published works of authors who cite the 
petitioner's work," the petitioner submitted a copy of one article, which appeared in Leukemia and 
Lymphoma in 2005. The authors were researchers at New York Medical College, which operates 
Westchester Medical Center. Five of the citing authors were also the petitioner's co-authors of the cited 
article, meaning that this is a self-citation. The cited article, meanwhile, was said to be "in press" at an 
unidentified journal. The title of the cited article does not match either of the two articles so 
emphatically stressed in the initial submission. 
The petitioner also submitted a copy of an electronic mail message from to- 
which names the above article, as well as a second article. The message provides the title of the article 
and the name of its author (yet another researcher at New York Medical College), but not the name of 
the publication in which the article appeared. The message contains no indication that this article 
contains a citation of the petitioner's work. The petitioner did not explain why she did not submit the 
article itself, as instructed. 
The petitioner also submitted new witness letters. Although the director had indicated a strong 
preference for letters from independent witnesses, all but one of the new letters are from Mayo Clinic 
faculty members. Counsel justifies this by noting that the Mayo Clinic is a widely acclaimed medical 
institution. %le the Mayo Clinic is a very highly regarded institution, this does not mean that the 
Mayo Clinic's faculty can speak on behalf of the wider medical profession. It remains that the 
petitioner had initially claimed "international acclaim in her field, which by definition means that she 
ought to be well known outside of the Mayo Clinic where she was a first-year fellow at the time. It is 
highly significant that, when asked to support these claims of international recognition, the petitioner 
instead resorted to irrelevant assertions about her employer's reputation. 
The new letters are broadly similar to the initial letters, discussing the same accomplishments noted in 
the first group of letters. in his second letter, deemed the petitioner "an elite member of 
the field of hematology/oncology" whose "impact . . . has certainly been felt throughout the field on a 
national level." 
stated: "It goes without saying that her work at the Mayo Clinic has been of enormous 
importance. This is an opinion that is shared throughout our field." The petitioner has succeeded only 
in showing that this opinion is shared throughout the Mayo Clinic, which, regardless of its reputation, 
cannot serve as a proxy for the entire medical profession. 
-) stated that the petitioner "has been involved in several research projects 
in . . . critically innovative research" but, once again, the research itself is not discussed in anyhng but 
the most general and superficial terms. also indicated that the petitioner "is currently training" 
at the Mayo Clinic, which raises the question of how the petitioner can be simultaneously a widely 
acclaimed physicianlresearcher while, at the same time, still in the first year of "training" at the clinic. 
- is identified as an Assistant Professor at the Mayo Clinic, although B 
letter is on the letterhead of Immanuel St. Joseph's Specialty Clinic in Mankato, Minnesota. Dr. 
- apparent ability to hold simultaneous positions at both institutions indicates the proximity of 
Mankato and Rochester. letter appears to be the "letter from the Specialty Clinic" to which 
counsel referred. stated that the petitioner "has sustained publications in several top 
journals," but did not claim to be on the editorialfstaff of any of those journals. 
letter is not documentation of the existence of the named articles; it is simply one more 
unsupported claim from a faculty member of the institution where the petitioner works. The petitioner 
has never explained why she is either unwilling or unable to directly document the publications 
themselves. 
The only witness with no demonstrated connection to the Mayo Clinic is 
 of the 
Mankato Clinic. Mankato is about 85 miles west of Rochester, where the Mayo Clinic is located. Dr. 
stated: "It is indeed very well known within our field that the work that [the petitioner] has 
performed has led to advancements in the burgeoning field." The very narrow range of witnesses is not, 
itself, evidence of the petitioner's broader reputation. If the petitioner is indeed widely known outside 
of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic, then evidence to that effect ought to be available outside of 
Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic. Certainly, the witnesses themselves never explain how they know the 
extent of the petitioner's reputation; they simply declare it to be "well known." 
In summary, in response to the director's observation that the witness letters lacked detail and originated 
mostly from the Mayo Clinic, the petitioner submitted more letters that lacked detail and originated 
mostly from the Mayo Clinic. The petitioner's response to the request for evidence therefore 
undermines rather than strengthens her claim of eligibility. 
The director denied the petition on September 15, 2008, stating "there is no evidence of this great 
interest" claimed by the petitioner's witnesses, as well as "no evidence of [the petitioner's claimed] 
publications." The director noted that the petitioner had documented only one citation of her work. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner "has paformed research that has had a national impact as is 
evidenced by her prolific record of publication and presentation." As the director has clearly and 
repeatedly pointed out, the record contains barely any evidence of the petitioner's "prolific record of 
publication and presentation." The petitioner has simply gotten her employers to assert that these 
publications exist. One witness asserted that the petitioner published an article in Chest that was 
subsequently cited by other researchers. When the director instructed the petitioner to submit copies of 
the citing articles, however, the petitioner documented only one citation, which related to a different 
article. Failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line of inquiry shall be 
grounds for denying the application or petition. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(14). The record is utterly devoid 
of first-hand evidence that the Chest article even exists, much less that anyone else has cited the article. 
Counsel asserts that the claimed shortage of physicianlresearchers in the petitioner's specialty "should 
be taken into consideration, by no means as a sole or perhaps even primary argument, but as an 
accentuating factor." The argument is not persuasive. A shortage implies reduced competition for a 
given position, meaning that the alien would be less likely to be displaced by a United States worker 
through the labor certification process. Even then, the assertion of a dire national shortage is supported, 
like so many of the petitioner's other claims, only by witness letters. 
Counsel once again contends that the Mayo Clinic is "considered by many as the world's top 
medical institution." (We note that the petitioner herself, on her own r6sume, refers to the Mayo 
Clinic as "the second best hospital in [the] USA.") It does not follow, however, that Mayo Clinic 
officials have the authority or standing to declare particular aliens eligible for immigration benefits. 
We have taken their statements into account, but the credibility of those statements suffers 
considerably from the letters' lack of detail, along with the petitioner's persistent failure to provide 
any kind of documentation to support most of the claims in those letters. Repetition of these vague 
and unsupported claims by more witnesses tends to make those claims less credible, not more 
credible, to the point where doubts begin to arise as to the authorship of those letters. 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1154(b), provides for the approval 
of immigrant petitions only upon a determination that "the facts stated in the petition are true." 
False, contradictory, or unverifiable claims inherently prevent a finding that the petitioner's claims 
are true. See Anetekhai v. I.N.S., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Systronics Corp. v. I.N.S., 
153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 (D.D.C. 2001); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 
(D.D.C. 1988). 
The remainder of counsel's arguments on appeal concern various regulatory criteria fiom 8 C.F.R. 
$ 204.5(h)(3), pertaining to the petitioner's claim of extraordinary ability in the sciences. As 
previously noted, these claims relate to a separate petition and the AAO will not discuss them here. 
As is clear fiom a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. This denial is without prejudice to the 
filing of a new petition by a United States employer accompanied by a labor certification issued by the 
Department of labor, appropriate supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.