dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Interventional Radiology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-Z-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 20,2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a physician specializing in interventional radiology, seeks classification as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). In addition, the Petitioner seeks a national interest waiver 
of the job offer requirement that is normally attached to this classification. See section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). This discretionary waiver allows U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to provide an exemption from the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director found that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he 
had not established that a waiver of a job offer would be in the national interest. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that he satisfies the national interest waiver 
requirements. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences arts or business. Because this classification normally requires that 
the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
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 scienc~s, arts, or business, will 
Matter of M-Z-
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) National interest waiver .... the Attorney General 1 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. 
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. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must show that 
the proposed benefit will be national in scope. !d. 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. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, a petitioner's assurance 
that he or she will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to establish prospective 
national benefit. !d. at 219. Rather, a petitioner must justify projections of future benefit to the 
national interest by establishing a history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of 
influence on the field as a whole. !d. at 219, n.6. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined 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. The Petitioner has 
1 Pursuant to section 1517 'Of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ("HSA"), Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2311 
(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2012)), any reference to the Attorney General in a provision ofthe Act describing functions 
that were transferred from the Attorney General or other Department of Justice official to the Department of Homeland 
Security by the HSA "shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary" of Homeland Security. See also 6 U.S.C. § 542 note 
(2012); 8 U.S.C. § 1551 note (2012). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-Z-
established that his work as a physician is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit and that the 
proposed benefits of his radiology research would be national in scope. It remains, then, to 
determine whether the Petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an 
available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. 
At the time of filing the Form I-140, the Petitioner indicated that he was a physician-researcher , 
specializing in pediatric interventional radiology. He contends that his work has impacted the field 
of interventional radiology through his "elite clinical" expertise, authorsh'lp of publications and 
"national-level presentations ," peer-review work, awards, and the fact that his work has been "read" 
more than 1900 times online. In support of his eligibility, the Petitioner submitted his resume , 
documentation of his published and presented work, peer review activities, research funding, 
professional memberships , medical training credentials, along with various reference letters 
discussing his work in the field. 
The Petitioner provided evidence that he has authored or co-authored more than 20 articles that have 
been published in scholarly journals . Although the Petitioner's medical research has value, any 
research must be original and likely to present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention 
from the medical or scientific community. In order for a university, publisher or grantor to accept 
any research for graduation, publication or funding, the research must offer new and useful 
information to the pool of knowledge. Not every radiology fellow who performs original research 
that adds to the general pool of knowledge in the field inherently serves the national interest to an 
extent that is sufficient to waive the job offer requirement. The Petitioner must establish that once 
disseminated through publication or presentation, his work has garnered a significant number of 
independent citations or explain how his findings have otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
Here, the Petitioner asserts that the fact that his work has been "read" more than 1900 times as 
indicated by an online scholarship website, is evidence of the broad 
dissemination of his work. The fact that the Petitioner's research has been viewed does not 
necessarily mean that it has impacted the field unless it is accompanied by evidence that the 
individuals reading the work have then found it impactful and implemented it or used it in some 
way. The yiews and downloads do not confirm any ultimate reliance on the Petitioner's findings and 
do not show that the field's reaction to his articles distinguished him from his peers. 
The Petitioner also points to the fact that he is the recipient of the 2015 
granted by the "to recognize and encourage 
outstanding residents and fellows in radiologic research." The Petitioner does not indicate how 
many individuals are considered for this award, what percentage of applicants win this award, or 
explain how the receipt of this award corresponds to impact on the field. 
With respect to the documentation reflecting that the Petitioner has presented his findings at 
radiology meetings and medical conferences, we note that many professional fields regularly hold 
meetings and conferences to present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with other 
professionals . Professional associations, educational institutions, healthcare organizations , 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-Z-
employers, and government agencies promote and sponsor these meetings and conferences. 
Although presentation of the Petitioner's work demonstrates that he shared his original findings with 
others, there is no documentary evidence showing, for instance, frequent independent citation of his 
work, the use of his findings by other physicians, or that his findings have otherwise influenced the 
field of interventional radiology at a level sufficient to waive the job offer requirement. 
The Petitioner also submitted letters from colleagues and faculty members at multiple 
institutions 
attesting to his expertise and dedication and describing various projects on which he has worked? 
For instance, section head, pediatric rheumatology, 
and professor at indicated that the Petitioner "has 
produced outstanding research in areas which few specialists have expertise thus making him quite 
unique .... " assistant professor, clinical radiology 
commented that the Petitioner's work regarding trans-jugular liver biopsy in 
children was the first study to document the procedure for pediatric patients providing a technical 
success rate of 100%. further stated that the results "provide radiologists across 
the country with the tools and confidence to perform this very beneficial procedure on pediatric 
patients." Similarly, program director for the pediatric 
radiology fellowship at 
wrote that the Petitioner's research treating distal 
intestinal obstruction syndrome (DIOS), "has made others in the field cognizant of the efficacy of this 
procedure in such patients which provides immense benefit," and "since .[the Petitioner's] publication 
numerous radiologists have begun offering this procedure to their patients in the technique described by 
[the Petitioner]." 
program director and associate professor, 
explains that "[the Petitioner's] experience and exposure to the use of innovative 
applications of diagnostic and therapeutic tools throughout numerous specialties, makes him an 
invaluable asset." Furthermore, states that, due to his "excellent experience in teaching," the 
Petitioner has been assigned to give interventional radiology lectures to residents at 
chief of interventional radiology and associate professor, 
indicated that the Petitioner is an "elite clinician who has routinely produced 
clinical success stories where others have fallen short." He also mentioned· that the Petitioner is a 
peer reviewer for and the 
Regarding the Petitioner's services as a peer reviewer, it is common for! a publication to 
ask multiple reviewers to review a manuscript and to offer comments. The publication's editorial 
staff may accept or reject any reviewer's comments in determining whether to publish or reject 
submitted papers. Thus, peer review is routine in the field, and there is no evidence demonstrating 
that the Petitioner's occasional participation in the widespread peer review process is an indication that 
she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker 
having 
the same minimum qualifications. 
2 While we discuss only a sampling of these letters, we have reviewed and considered each one. 
4 
Matter of M-Z-
Several of those providing a recommendation for the Petitioner note that his "leading" and "unique" 
skills are "highly coveted" due to the shortage of pediatric interventional radiologists in the United 
States. General statements regarding the importance of a given field of endeavor, or the urgency of 
an issue facing the United States, cannot by themselves establish that an individual benefits the 
national interest by virtue of engaging in the field. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217. Such 
information addresses only the "substantial intrinsic merit" prong of NYSDOTs national interest test. 
We do not dispute the importance of having skilled radiologists working in our nation's healthcare 
institutions. At issue in this matter, however, is whether the Petitioner's individual contributions in 
the field are of such significance that he merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver. 
While his character references all stated that the Petitioner's work has impacted other researchers in the 
field, they did not explain how his specific findings have become part of treatment protocols in the field 
of interventional radiology. Several letters included statements that the Petitioner's research has 
"contributed" or has affected the practice of pediatric interventional- radiology, but neither the 
content of the letters or the evidence in the record is sufficient to support a finding that his research 
has been widely implemented in clinical settings. 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 ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)) 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific claims 
above. Uncorroborated statements are insufficient to meet the Petitioner's burden of proof. See 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding USCIS' decision to give 
limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); See also Matter of Caron 
Int'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 791,795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use 
as advisory opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the.benefit sought 
and "is not required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way 
questionable"). The submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USC IS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the petitioner's eligibility. !d. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting 
that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). As the reference letters 
did not establish that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole, they do not 
demonstrate his eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner also makes several statements regarding the impact of his work that are not supported 
by evidence in the record. For example, the Petitioner claims that "his research has received world­
wide medical attention and he has become a recognized name in the field through his professional 
accomplishments." He also states that "his research has been implemented by clinicians around the 
country in their clinical practice and it has provided a foundation for other researchers to build upon 
his findings." However, he has not provided evidence demonstrating that his work has affected 
diagnostic or treatment protocols for patients at various medical centers, has been frequently cited by 
other investigators in their medical research, or has otherwise influenced the field as a whole, or that 
5 
Matter of M-Z-
it has had an impact beyond the patients and staff at his hospitals. Furthermore, there is no evidence 
showing that the Petitioner's work as an evaluator, teacher, or clinician has influenced the field as a 
whole. USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated statements. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. 
Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in 
immigration benefits adjudications). 
Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, we find that the record does not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner has had sufficient influence on his field to satisfy the third prong of 
the NYSDOT analysis. As stated above, that prong 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." See NYSDOT, 22 
I&N Dec. at 219, n. 6. 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. 
III. CONCLUSION 
It is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. See section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the 
Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-Z- ID 19607 (AAO Oct. 20, 20 16) 
I