dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

IJ~:~c\I;~r~1 cje~rl:/ t,s~J\\:,~rr~rl[:~:.~c(l 
';'Y'-""C~""''''' 1'1:.~ ":"C "",'C""11 ,-,l; ""'''''''''1'''''''' 1' .... " w ~~.ltO~;;. .J.J; .... !t.Jt\,.;:.;.vU"" ... .;......,r. i-""'L ~~ '-) ~"' ... J 
PUBLIC COpy 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S, Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: DEC 28 2011 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE:_ 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
SELF -REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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) ofthe 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 is a resident physician at the University of Minnesota (UM) Medical Center, Minneapolis, 
who ultimately seeks employment as an electrophysiologist. 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 ofthe United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner requests oral argument, stating: 
My case is unique because of the complexity of the medical training system in the US 
that prevents me from obtaining labor certification. Medicare who is the nation-wide 
employer of residents/fellows will not perform labor-certification. I believe if I 
present orally my circumstances I will be able to convey in full the complexities of 
the medical training system. 
The regulations require the requesting party to explain in writing why oral argument is necessary. 
Furthermore, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the sole authority to grant or 
deny a request for oral argument and will grant argument only in cases invo lving unique factors or 
issues of law that cannot be adequately addressed in writing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). In this 
instance, the petitioner presented no coherent basis for oral argument. He simply asserts that ''the 
complexities of the medical training system" defy written description and therefore he must address 
them orally. The petitioner submits no support for this claim and, as the AAO will show, the 
petitioner has a history, throughout this proceeding, of making unsupported claims. Consequently, 
the AAO denies the request for oral argument. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
Page 3 
(B) Waiver ofJob 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, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (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 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 (NYSDOI), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 
1998), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national 
interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit. Next, the petitioner must show 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. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
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 intention behind the term "prospective" is 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. 
-Page 4 
The AAO also notes 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 offer/labor 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 ofthe 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. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on February 8, 2010. The record indicates that the 
petitioner earned a bachelor's degree in computer engineering and a master's degree in electrical 
engineering, both at the University of Illinois (UI) at Urbana-Champaign, and worked as a software 
design engineer at COl in Chicago, Illinois, before attending medical school at UM. 
In a letter accompanying the initial filing, the petitioner described his work and his claim 0 f 
eligibility for the waiver: 
I am an electrical engineer, physician and biomedical researcher at the University of 
Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN. I am currently a resident in the 
department ofIntemal Medicine at the University of Minnesota-Medical Center .... 
This petition provides evidence of my extraordinary and extensive contributions in 
the areas of biomedical engineering, information technology, orthopedic oncology 
and most recently in cardiology. Some of my exceptional contributions include: 
(1) Development of a novel signal processing algorithm for analysis of Neuronal 
Signals. 
(2) Contributions in the field ofInformation Technology 
(3) Contributions in the field of Orthopaedic Oncology 
(4) Contributions in the field of Cardiology. 
I have made significant original contributions in the development of signal processing 
technology for analysis of neuronal signals in the field of neuroscience and medicine. 
I have developed a novel algorithm that is currently being used and being investigated 
for the analysis of large-scale neuronal system. Some of the technologies I have 
developed [are in use] by commercial systems and investigators from other 
laboratories to advance their own research. My research has implications in the 
diagnosis and treatment of complex diseases such as Parkinson's, spinal cord 
injury, amputations which affect millions each year in the United States. Also 
these research areas are of high priority to the nation - it includes cochlear implants, 
deep brain stimulation - both tremendously successful technologies - as well as work 
in brain computer interfaces for aid to ALS patients and promising work in retinal 
implants, plus a host of neural control problems ranging from incontinence to 
migraines. I have also written promising work about exciting developments in the 
PageS 
area ofmolecular oncology and is likely to result in wider practical applications in the 
clinical setting .... 
Finally, the level of my expertise and the contributions I have made are well beyond 
and substantially greater than what would be expected of another U.S. worker with 
the same minimum qualifications .... 
My unique training as both a physician, engineer and a scientist ... allows me to not 
only care for patients but also to work in the laboratory to solve long standing clinical 
problems and to bring the next generation of cures to the bedside .... 
The evidence of my extensive and groundbreaking contributions in the area of 
genomic, proteomic and drug discovery technologies provided in this petition predicts 
enormous prospective benefit to the United States. Furthermore, it argues that 
granting a national interest waiver will greatly benefit the United States and 
significantly outweigh the benefits of the labor certification process. 
(Emphasis in original.) In a separate statement, the petitioner stated: "I have published my research 
fmdings in some ofthe very top journals in my area of research." The petitioner also claimed: "My 
research has been cited and extensively discussed in the scientific literature .... As objective 
evidence of the influence I have had on biomedical sciences, please refer to Exhibit 3A which 
provides a list of citations I have garnered for my publications within the last four years" 
(emphasis in original). Exhibit 3A is a printout from http://scholar.google.com, listing two citations 
of one of the petitioner's articles. The petitioner documented no other citations. 
Elaborating on the claim that his work "has been . . . extensively discussed in the scientific 
literature," the petitioner stated: ''Not only has my research been cited by other scientists, but my 
work is now a rising topic of interest in the field ofbiomedical engineering and is discussed in great 
detail in several papers showing that my research has spurred other scientists to follow on my 
leads" (emphasis in original). The only evidence the petitioner submitted to support this claim is 
Exhibit 3B, "the cover page of [the] most recent edition of IEEE engineering in Medicine and 
Biology. The title of the cover is 'It's Time for Wavelets - Wavelets and Time-frequency in 
Biomedical Signal Processing. '" (emphasis in original). The petitioner does not explain how this 
journal cover shows that other researchers have "discussed [his work] in great detail in several 
papers." The petitioner's name does not appear on the cover, and the petitioner did not submit 
copies of any of the articles from that issue of the journa1. The cover, by itself, is not evidence that 
anyone is discussing the petitioner's work at all, much less proof of "extensive" discussion and 
widespread influence. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SojJici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). Some of the petitioner's past work has involved wavelets, but this neither proves 
nor implies that any subsequent publication mentioning wavelets must discuss the petitioner's work 
or show the petitioner's influence. 
Page 6 
Several witness letters accompanied the initial submission. The petitioner asserted: "Some 0 f these 
scientists have had no professional or personal association with me," but all of them have 
demonstrable ties to institutions where the petitioner has studied or worked. 
now at the University of Florida, stated: 
Before coming to the University of Florida, I was at the University of Illinois .... 
My research interests lie in the application of electrical engineering methodologies to 
neuroscience. My work influenced the development of neural spike sorting 
technologies, demonstrated that microelectrode array recording from brain slices was 
possible and productive, and has been a leader in the development of lithography to 
control the growth in culture of neurons and other cells. This work is aimed at basic 
science understanding of the behavior of small populations of neurons, in hopes of 
creating better insights into the functioning of the brain. 
[The petitioner] trained under me as an undergraduate student and graduate student. 
. .. His work primarily focused on the development of neural spike sorting 
technologies and algorithms. Neural spikes are the tiny electrical signals detected by 
micro electrodes placed very close to individual neurons. By distinguishing the spike 
or wave shapes - one unique shaper per nerve cell - one can enhance the amount of 
data gathered from a single recording .... Thus, [the petitioner's] field of study is of 
growing importance as scientists try to understand more about how the hugely 
complex brain processes information .... 
[The petitioner's] work as a Master's student was excellent. He attacked the spike 
sorting problem by applying the novel technique known as wavelet analysis to 
identity features of the spike waveforms that are much better suited to automatic 
sorting algorithms .... 
Overall, I find [the petitioner] to be an extremely talented and versatile scientist with 
expertise in [an] extraordinarily diverse array of disciplines such as, Engineering, 
Information Technology, Neuroscience and Clinical medicine. 
UI Professor stated: 
My professional association has been with [the petitioner] in an instructional capacity 
as his staff professor for courses he taught with me as a graduate student assistant. ... 
I initially met [the petitioner] when he was assigned to be a teaching assistant with me 
for the junior and senior level biomedical engineering instrumentation lecture and lab 
courses at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a gifted educator in 
the field of biomedical engineering, particularly in biomedical device design and 
-Page 7 
testing. He was instrumental in developing the course materials for the first 
biomedical engineering lab course offered at the University of Illinois-Urbana 
Champaign. He was the first graduate student lab instructor for the ECE 415-
Biomedical Engineering Lab which has now grown to become among the most 
popular courses to be taught in the biomedical engineering department .... 
From a research standpoint [the petitioner] is a prominent scientist in the area of 
neural signal analysis and has made outstanding contributions towards the 
advancement of neural . . I am familiar with the work that was being 
done in lab when [the petitioner] was a graduate student such 
[sic] technologies for the study of small neuronal networks, micropatteming the 
growth of individual neurons and neural signal processing. [The petitioner's] work 
will improve the understanding of how the human nervous system works. 
While scientists all across the world are working frenetically to make such a 
technology a reality, significant technical hurdles still remain. Fortunately, some of 
the recent advances made by [the petitioner] and co-workers address some of these 
fundamental challenges. [The petitioner] has made exciting progress towards 
construction of a novel mathematical technique known as wavelet analysis, to sort 
neural spike trains. His preliminary studies suggest that this algorithm may play an 
important role in [the] future of spike sorting, with even early implementation in 
commercial spike sorting systems. 
. . . [The petitioner] established a platform technology that may truly allow 
neuroscientists to perform multivariate analyses of multiple spike train data. This 
technology is developing and will hopefully become useful for analyzing signals from 
virtually any neuron in the body. [The petitioner's] technology represents one of the 
most promising and exciting developments in the area of neuronal spike train analysis 
and is likely to result in practical applications. Early adoption has begun in certain 
commercial spike sorting software program [sic]. This is particularly invaluable in 
the development of neural prosthesis for patients with absent limbs such as amputees 
and even paraplegics in the future. 
In summary, I consider [the petitioner] to be an exceptional biomedical scientist 
whose scientific contributions have had and will continue to have profound influence 
on the scientific and medical community ofthe United States. 
UI Professor stated: "Although I have never had any professional 
aSSOCIatIon ner], I have closely followed his scientific career through his publications 
in the biomedical sciences." _ called the petitioner "a prominent scientist in the area of 
biomedical engineering and sciences [who] has made outstanding contributions towards the 
advancement of orthopaedic oncology and neural signal processing technologies." _ 
described at length the goals and "significant technical hurdles" of molecular oncology, and stated 
-Page 8 
that the petitioner's "exciting discoveries" "address some of these fundamental challenges," but he 
did not elaborate. 
a self-described "senior consultant and manager at CGI, a global leader in IT 
services," stated: 
I served as a developer and later a development lead for two projects [the petitioner] 
was specifically recruited from the University of Illinois ... to serve [as] a software 
consultant and architect for modernizing government. CGI was awarded a US$16 
Million Contract for Accounting & Collection Support for Financial Management 
System for the Illinois Student Assistance Commission (I SAC). Through a creative 
partnership, CGI was asked to leveraging [sic] innovative business processes and 
technologies that transform operations for the future and deliver on process and 
technology demands oftoday. After the implementation of our system ISAC and the 
public sector can now better track and invest their resources, collect all redeemable 
revenues, and create and manage efficient channels of service delivery. [The 
petitioner] carried out his software design and development under my direct 
supervIsIon .... 
The software he developed at ISAC for government debt collections has been adopted 
in a wide range of our applications particUlarly adaptable in other government 
systems. This government debt collection offered through innovative funding models 
allows clients to increase revenue without raising taxes .... To my knowledge some 
of the technology he developed has been adopted for the government software 
solutions built for the State of Iowa. I am certain much of his software has become 
part of the base version of our code platform and will continue to have his name as 
one 0 f [its] early contributors and developers. 
The petitioner did not submit first-hand, documentary evidence to corroborate the claims of fact in 
the letter quoted above. Also, the petitioner did not show how the ISAC project, which involved 
revenue collection, is directly relevant to his intended medical work, apart from the obvious 
observation that both types of work involve sophisticated computer technology. 
UMPro 
I worked with [the petitioner] while he was a medical student at the University of 
Minnesota and was very impressed with his work effort, intellect, and independence . 
. . . I mentored him on a six-week research rotation. During this rotation, he 
performed review of literature on the molecular aspects of musculoskeletal oncology 
and generated a manuscript from this work. ... [The petitioner] performed essentially 
the entire project. . . . The manuscript was accepted without major revisions, an 
Page 9 
impressive accomplishment. The manuscript was published recently ill Clinical 
Orthopaedics and Related Research. 
I envision [the petitioner] as a major contributor to health care in the United States. 
program director for UM's Internal Medicine Residency Program, where the 
petitioner "is currently training as a resident physician," stated: 
[The petitioner] has made significant research discoveries and academic 
achievements that led us to accept him into our competitive residency program. In 
graduate school he developed a groundbreaking pattern recognition algorithm that 
allows neuroscientists to process the explosion of data from the simultaneous 
recordings of several neurons. This technology is widely expected to propel the next 
generation of medical diagnostics and treatment for amputees. 
_ concluded that the petitioner "is an excellent example of a rare breed of scientists who 
bring multiple disciplines together to make groundbreaking advances in science and medicine. This 
is clearly evident from his extraordinary accomplishments." did not identify any 
specific "extraordinary accomplishments." He merely listed various projects that involved the 
petitioner, but did not specify the petitioner's contributions to those projects. 
On April 5, 2010, the director issued a request for evidence, instructing the petitioner to provide 
further details about his intended future work. The director also requested documentation to support 
claims of fact made by witnesses and by the petitioner himself For example, the director noted that 
the petitioner's initial submission contained nothing to support the claim that his work has been 
"extensively discussed in the scientific literature." The director advised that failure to support this 
claim with persuasive evidence ''would, of course, cast a level of doubt over all of [the petitioner's] 
claims." 
In response to the notice, the petitioner did not claim to have any evidence of "extensive discussion" 
of his work in the scientific literature. Instead, he stated "I apologize for the liberal use of those 
words," and asserted that the "extensive discussion" actually consisted of his own published work 
and conference presentations. The petitioner made no attempt to explain why he had previously 
cited the cover of an engineering journal as evidence in this regard. Also, the petitioner's attempt to 
withdraw his initial claim to "extensive discussion" of his work does not explain away his prior 
claim that "other scientists ... discussed [his work] in great detail in several papers." 
The situation described above, in which the petitioner retreated from his earlier, hyperbolic claims, 
occurs several times in his response to the request for evidence. As another example, the petitioner 
originally claimed "extensive and groundbreaking contributions to the area of genomic, proteomic 
and drug discovery technologies," but when pressed for details, the petitioner stated that his 
contribution consisted of "preparing a comprehensive review ... of these advances in the field of 
Page 10 
orthopaedic oncology." The petitioner fails to explain how compiling existing research, performed 
by others, amounted to "extensive and groundbreaking contributions." 
The director had noted that ~ad claimed to "have closely followed [the petitioner's] 
scientific career through his publications in the biomedical sciences." The director also noted that 
the petitioner had submitted only one publication in the biomedical sciences, the aforementioned 
review article that the petitioner assembled with The director asked: "Other than the 
review article which you did with which of your publications were in the 
biomedical sciences?" 
The petitioner offered no direct, relevant response to the above query. Instead, the petitioner stated: 
_ has been a close advisor through my career in engineering and medicine. 
His comments are his personal reflections of my talent to produce work in 
engineering and orthopaedic oncology. His summary based on his expertise in 
biomedical sciences, is in using the nomenclature biomedical sciences. He is also 
pointing to my award for fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering in orthopaedic 
oncology. 
The petitioner submitted no clarifying statement from _to support the claim that, when 
_ stated "I have closely followed his scientific career through his publications in the 
biomedical sciences," he actually meant to refer to his own background and to the petitioner's 
fellowship at Memorial Sloan Kettering. 
After several additional instances of attempting to explain or modify claims from the witness letters, 
the petitioner asserted: "All the people who have written my letters are very prominent members of 
the medical and scientific community .... To reiterate these are highly reputed authorities in the 
scientific community and their integrity and credentials [are] at stake for making unsubstantial and 
falsified claims regarding my work and talent." An emphatic defense of the witnesses' integrity and 
reputations is no substitute for evidence that those witnesses' claims are, in fact, true. 
The Board ofImmigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it 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 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit 
sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
Page 11 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as 
to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; 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"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. !d. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'I. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions regarding the importance and impact 
of the petitioner's work, without specifically identifying innovations and providing specific, 
verifiable examples of how those innovations have influenced the field. The lack of supporting 
evidence, even after the director specifically requested as much, significantly reduces the weight the 
AAO can give these letters. 
In terms of his future career plans, the petitioner stated that he has pursued medical training ''with 
the express intent of pursuing a career in academic medicine ... medical research and medical 
device design." The petitioner asserted that he would require "7 more years of training to obtain 
[his] ultimate credentials in Electrophysiology." He claimed: 
I am at the unique juncture of being able to continue my training under the umbrella 
of the national physician training pathway which requires and allows for rigorous 
research work while obtaining medical training. This program is a highly recognized 
national program for creating the next generation of doctors dedicated to academic 
medicine at nationally recognized and funded institutions. However all these 
programs [ are] limited to candidates with permanent residency or citizenship. I am 
left with only 2 options after [I] complete training to immediately secure a position in 
private medicine allowing me to remain in the country or to leave the country 
permanently. 
The petitioner did not identifY "[t]his program" or produce any documentary support for his claims 
about residency requirements or the assertion that he would have ''to leave the country permanently" 
(a claim that implies he would never subsequently qualify for any nonimmigrant classification or as 
the beneficiary of an immigrant petition). Given the petitioner's admitted history of "liberal" claims 
that he has failed or refused to support with reliable evidence, the AAO sees little reason to give this 
claim much weight. Furthermore, even if the petitioner were to prove that the national interest 
waiver is the petitioner's only means of avoiding "permanent" departure from the United States, it 
would not follow that it would be in the national interest to grant the waiver. The petitioner's 
personal desire to remain in the United States is not, itself, a matter of national interest. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from another UM faculty member, who 
stated that the petitioner "has worked on compiling a remarkable database on patients who 
underwent OHT [orthotopic heart transplantation] between 1997 and 2007 at the University of 
Minnesota." _ had previously mentioned this work, stating that the petitioner "is currently 
Page 12 
pursuing research in cardiology with an eminent researcher in cardiac 
arrhythmias, studying the relationship of cardiac arrhythmias in heart transplant patients." The 
petitioner and his witnesses had not, however, highlighted this research as being a particular 
highlight in the petitioner's research career. 
The director denied the petition on July 22, 20 I 0, stating that the petitioner and his witnesses have 
made "assertions which are given little support by the documentary evidence." The director noted 
that some witnesses had assigned major importance to projects that either never saw publication, or 
were finished years ago with no objective evidence of wider impact. The director found that the 
petitioner had not distinguished himself from others in his field, and that USCIS would not approve 
a waiver petition based on the assertion that the petitioner was still seven years away from a fully 
productive research career (as opposed to training in preparation for such a career). 
On appeal, the petitioner states ''the medical training system in the US ... prevents me from 
obtaining labor certification. Medicare who is the nation-wide employer of residents/fellows will 
not perform labor-certification." Medicare provides funding for residency training, but is not ''the 
nation-wide employer of residents/fellows." 
If the petitioner is already qualified to practice medicine in the United States, there are options open 
to him. Indeed, on appeal the petitioner states that "many geographic areas face physician 
shortages," which is precisely why Congress passed section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, which made 
the national interest waiver available to alien physicians who commit to practicing in shortage areas. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.12 has more information. If the petitioner has no intention 
of practicing medicine in a shortage area, then the existence of such shortages is irrelevant to his 
appeal and it is not clear why he mentioned them at all. 
On the other hand, if the petitioner's training is not complete, he does not explain why he cannot 
continue to pursue that training in nonimmigrant status, as he has already been doing. (As a self­
identified F -1 nonimmigrant student, there is no fixed time limit on his status, so long as he remains 
a student.) The petitioner is not persuasive when he argues that USCIS must immediately grant him 
a national interest waiver if he is to have any hope of completing his training and remaining in the 
United States. Even then, as already noted, the claim that the petitioner has limited options for 
remaining in the United States does not show or imply that it is in the national interest for USCIS to 
exempt him from the usual legal requirements such as a job offer and labor certification. 
The petitioner initially based his waiver application on a number of exaggerated claims, which the 
petitioner abandoned or heavily modified once the director challenged him to support them with 
documentary evidence. The petitioner's witness letters also contain such claims, which the 
petitioner has unsuccessfully attempted to deflect by referring to the witnesses' reputations. 
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). It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any inconsistencies in the 
Page 13 
record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile such inconsistencies, 
absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, will not suffice. Id. at 
582,591-92. 
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 ofa 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 ofthe United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.