dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicinal Chemistry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
~dentifjbg data deleted 
P~W dearly lmrrarran~d 
~nmion of peraooal pripae). 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: NW 0 2 2005, 
EAC 04 257 51968 
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. 5 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 
$ Robert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. $ 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks 
employment as a postdoctoral research scientist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI) at Columbia 
University. The petitioner 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. 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 from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United 
States. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(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 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, 
101 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1989). 
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 Citizenship and Immigration Services] 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 (Comm. 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 alien with no demonstrable prior achievements, 
and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. 
The petitioner discusses his work: 
I have been focusing on the research on new radiotracers or novel drugs for mental illnesses. 
The main research specialties include development of novel brain imaging agents and, in 
particular, imaging agents for subtypes glutamate receptors, nicotinic receptors and sigma 
receptors. . . . Since my work is to develop novel specific agents for probing the function of 
the glutamate receptor and the norepinephrine transporter will have great utility for research 
on the diagnosis and treatment of neurological diseases. . . . 
[At] Rutgers University as [a] postdoctoral associate, I had been focusing on the project on 
"Folate Receptor-Mediated Delivery of Anticancer Drugs to Ovarian Cancer Cells." . . . Our 
research project seeks to develop a new strategy for the improvement of therapeutic 
effectiveness of anticancer agents and at the same time reduce systemic toxicity. Since 
cancer cells are genetically unstable, they often quickly evolve under sub-optimal doses and 
acquire resistance to the anticancer drugs used. One approach to increase the selectivity and 
decrease systemic side effects is to design prodrugs that can be site-specifically delivered to 
and activated inside tumor cells. . . . 
My contributions to and significant role in research on medicinal chemistry, anticancer 
prodrugs and nuclear medicine have been highly recognized by the experts in the world. 
-7 
Page 4 
As evidence of this claimed recognition, the petitioner submits several witness letters, mostly from the 
faculties of Rutgers and Columbia University, the two universities where the petitioner has received 
postdoctoral training. -, assistant professor and director of the Radioligand 
Development and Radiopharmacology Laboratory at Columbia University states: 
I have known [the petitioner] for over one year now, and serve as his current supervisor, 
mentor, and colleague. . . 
[The petitioner's] research is to develop novel radiotracers for targets important to the study 
of cancer or mental illnesses: areas of crucial importance for national interest. . . . On a day to 
day basis, [the petitioner] is carrying out organic and radiochemical syntheses, and designing 
the biomedical imaging agents of the future. [The petitioner's] primary project . . . is to 
develop PET radioligands for imaging group I1 metabotropic glutamate receptors. . . . He has 
recently designed an improved synthetic route for the target candidate compounds that has 
significantly facilitated the project aims. In addition to this, [the petitioner] is contributing to 
the development of novel radiotracers for other glutamate receptors, including the 
phencyclidine site of the NMDA ion channel. 
In addition, [the petitioner] is making strong intellectual contributions toward the synthesis of 
novel dopamine D3 receptor tracers, sigma-1 receptor radioligands, and norepinephrine 
transporter imaging agents. . . . All of this research is extremely important to advance 
biomedical imaging research leading to new insights in Parkinson's Disease, Schizophrenia, 
major depression, bipolar disorder, and many other psychiatric illnesses. . . . 
In summary, I believe that [the petitioner's] contributions . . . will be of tremendous potential 
benefit to our country. 
Other ColumbiaINew York State Psychiatric Institute (NYSPI) faculty members offer similarly favorable 
letters on the petitioner's behalf. 
Professor, director of the Susan Lehman Cullman Laboratory for Cancer Research at 
Rutgers and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, lists the petitioner's past projects but offers little 
evaluation of the petitioner's contributions thereto. -states that the petitioner "is an excellent 
medicinal chemist who has made important contributions" in his various areas of endeavor. 
, an associate professor at Rutgers, states: 
[The petitioner] worked as [a] postdoctoral associate in my laboratory for almost 3 years. 
One of the projects he worked on was "Folate Receptor-Mediated Delivery of Anticancer 
Drugs to Ovarian Cancer Cells." . . . [The petitioner] prepared prodrugs which included 
dendrimers . . . with folate and multiple copies of anticancer drug platinum complex attached 
on the peripheral surface. We seek to develop a new strategy for the improvement of 
therapeutic effectiveness of anticancer agents and at the same time reduce systemic toxicity. 
Page 5 
. . . [The petitioner also] developed a new efficient method . . . for the synthesis of two novel 
peptide analogues . . . designed as inhibitors to protein kinases A. . . . [These] inhibitors can 
be used as pharmacological probes for the elucidation of protein kinase function and as 
potential therapeutic agents for the treatment of cancer. 
, also of Rutgers, offers a similar description of the petitioner's work there. 
The only initial witness who is not on the faculty of Rutgers or Columbia University is - 
associate professor at Harvard Medical school,' who states: 
I 
I came across [the petitioner's] work as imaging technology has become increasingly popular 
in the field of alcoholism research. I am particularly impressed by the work he presented at a 
recent International Conference of Neuroscience. . . . 
[The petitioner] has already made significant contributions to the field of medicinal 
chemistry, radiochemistry and biochemistry. . . . 
[The petitioner] has established himself as a world known scientist with extraordinary 
abilities in the field of medicinal chemistry and nuclear medicine. 
To conclude that the petitioner is "world known," we must rely on more than statements from witnesses in 
three contiguous northeastern states, most of whom are or were the petitioner's co-workers. The petitioner 
submits copies of several of his articles that have appeared in various published journals since 1998, as well 
as manuscripts of articles not yet published at the time of filing. The existence of the articles demonstrates 
that the petitioner has been a prolific researcher, but cannot by itself establish the impact of the petitioner's 
work. Similarly, documentation showing that the petitioner has received two research grants and applied for 
three more shows that funding entities find the project goals to be worthwhile, but absent evidence that grant 
funding is rare in the petitioner's specialty, the mere fact that the petitioner's work is grant-supported carries 
minimal weight. 
The director denied the petition, noting the witness letters and other evidence, but concluding that the 
evidence submitted does not set the petitioner apart from others in his field to a degree that would warrant the 
special benefit of a national interest waiver. 
On appeal, the petitioner again summarizes his career and states that his "current research is on the frontline 
of medicinal chemistry, nuclear medicine, and radiotracer for mental illnesses." The petitioner maintains that 
his background and expertise make him "an outstanding scientist in this field" and "an accomplished 
professional whose expertise is a definite asset" to the field. The issue is not the intrinsic merit of cancer and 
mental health research, nor is it the petitioner's professional competence in those areas of research. 
I In the body of the letter, tates "I am an Associate Professor of Biochemistry," but the signature block and 
printed letterhead both read "Department of Pathology." 
Page 6 
The petitioner demonstrates that his recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant application "got a very 
good Priority Score (167) and Excellent Summary Statement." This new documentation does not even show 
that the grant application has even been approved, let alone that such grant funding is a hallmark of unusually 
significant research, rather than a primary source of funding for university-based scientific resear~h.~ In a 
similar vein, new manuscripts and presentations show that the petitioner continues to be productive in his 
field, but they are not prima facie evidence of eligibility for a waiver. The petitioner provides minimal 
evidence that his published work has attracted attention outside of the universities where he has worked. For 
instance, a document submitted on appeal shows only three citations of one of the petitioner's articles. 
has been invited to present a seminar, but this invitation came from them 
for Cancer Research at Rutgers, the very laboratory where he used to work. 
Therefore, this invitation shows little more than the confidence of the Rutgers faculty in the petitioner's 
abilities, and it is not strong support for the petitioner's previous claims of worldwide recognition. 
The petitioner states that the labor certification process would be "unfair" because an alien of his talents 
should not have to compete with "other relatively less qualified" workers in the field. He argues that his 
"efforts have impacted the nation to a more significant degree than others who are similarly employed," but 
he offers little new support for these arguments apart from his personal assessment of his own training and 
accomplishments. 
Two new letters accompany the appeal. - formerly the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor at the 
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, calls the petitioner "an excellent medicinal chemist who has currently 
made important contributions" in the areas already described. , an assistant professor at 
Columbia University/NYSPI, states that the petitioner "is making several important original contributions to 
the fields of chemistry and nuclear medicine." These letters do not undermine the director's basic findings. 
Rather, they are consistent with the conclusion that the petitioner's reputation is largely confined to 
universities where the petitioner has worked and/or studied. 
The record contains no objective evidence by which we could confidently conclude that the petitioner stands 
out from his peers to a degree sufficient to warrant a waiver of the job offer requirement that, by law, 
normally applies to the immigrant visa classification that the petitioner has chosen to seek. 
As is clear from 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. 
According to the NIH web site at http:l/www.grants.nih.govlgrantslawardltrendslfund9404.htm (accessed August 18, 
2005), NIH awarded 47,464 research grants in fiscal year 2004, worth over $19.6 billion. According to 
htt~:/lwww.~rants.nih.~ovlgrants/awardlawardtr.htm#c, NIH provided funding to 3,182 different entities in fiscal year 
2004. Over a hundred institutions received over 100 awards each. Johns Hopkins University alone received 1,304 
awards, totaling almost $600 million. 1,132 of these awards were research grants, worth nearly $541 million. 
Page 7 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 136 1. 
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.