dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
2
0 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OCT 2 4 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE 
INRE: 
PETITION : 
Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
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 Immigr ation 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new construction s of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believ e the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration , you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen , respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~lf~~:~rrative ~pe als Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The 
matter is now before us at the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will dismiss 
the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b )(2) of the hnmigration 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 medical researcher and/or physician. At the time she filed the etition 
on her own behalf, the petitioner was a fellow at Texas. 
She has subsequently relocated to Connecticut. 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits copies of previously submitted statements. 
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. 
(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). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 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. 
In reNew York State Dep't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. 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. !d. at 217-18. 
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. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included 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. !d. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.P.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 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. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on February 26, 2013. On 
Part 6, line 1 of Form I-140, the petitioner listed her intended job title as "Medical Researcher." On 
lines 8 and 9 of the accompanying Form ETA-750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien, the 
petitioner stated that she seeks employment as a "Physician" at __; Texas. On line 15a 
of Form ETA-750B, the petitioner indicated that, since July 2011, she had been a'' 
with duties including "[p ]atient care," "surgical 
procedures," 
"research projects" and "teaching of other fellows [and] residents." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
An introductory statement submitted with the petition contends that the petitioner "is an outstanding 
and superb clinical researcher in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology" (OB/GYN), who "has 
produced original scientific contributions that have significantly influenced her field." 
The petitioner submitted 11 exhibits under the heading of "A wards, Recognitions and 
Memberships." Such materials can provide partial support for a claim of exceptional ability under 
the USCIS regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) and (E), respectively, but by statute, 
exceptional ability is not presumptive grounds for the waiver. Awards of particular importance can 
reflect the impact and influence of the petitioner's contributions, but the submitted awards are all at 
the student or resident level, from institutions where the petitioner was training at the time of the 
awards. As such, they show that the petitioner was a good student, but they do not establish 
influence on the field as a whole. 
The petitioner's initial submission included five letters. 
Nursing for 
coordinator of the -
director of Public Health 
described the petitioner's work as the 
California. Ms. 
stated that the petitioner 
"developed a quality assurance tool for the program ... to help assess 
the impact of the interventions made with the participants in the program," and "developed lesson 
plans and protocols for the to address the specific needs of the women" in the program . 
A May 1, 2001 article from the stated that "a four-year campaign to tackle 
alarmingly high rates of infant mortality and improve children's health [in 
has been a marked success." The article does not mention the or the petitioner by name, but 
the timing of the article coincides with the program's existence. 
When the petitioner began working for the , her only academic degree was a 
baccalaureate in chemistry; she earned a master's degree in public health during her time on the 
project. The petitioner was not a physician or a medical researcher when she worked on the project, 
and has not undertaken similar work since obtaining a physician's credentials. Information about the 
therefore, is not evidence of the petitioner's influence on her current field. 
Dr. chairman of the OB/GYN department at discussed research 
that the petitioner undertook during her residency training there from 2007 to 2011: 
The purpose of her study on Pelvic Floor dysfunction was to further explore the use 
of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST), using biothesiometry (the use of vibration to 
evaluate nerve function and sensitivity), in order to quantify the effects of female 
genital neuropathies on pelvic floor function. . . . research group also looked 
at the effect of bicycle seats and the pressure from sitting on the bike and how it 
affects the pelvic floor. This information is necessary to help with prevention of 
pelvic floor dysfunction, and will be used to help develop bicycle seats that are more 
ergonomic. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(The petitioner] is a valuable researcher whose work has been recognized 
internationally .... 
[The petitioner] relishes the opportunity to pioneer new surgical techniques, 
especially in minimally invasive procedures including robotic surgery .... Her 
research concluded that laparoscopic approach is feasible [for fibroid-related 
hysterectomy] regardless of uterine size as long as no concern for worrisome 
diseases, such as sarcoma, exists. The identified surgical learning points were then 
taught and conveyed to surgeons in order to perform this technically difficult surgery. 
Dr. did not claim or demonstrate that the petitioner's research has had a nationally significant 
effect on the performance of laparoscopic hysterectomies. 
Dr. professor of obstetrics and gynecology at and director of 
fellowship of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at stated that the petitioner 
"has been an invaluable and excellent educator at She has taught nurses and our 
medical students as well as our OB/GYN residents." Dr. asserted: "There is a shortage of 
OB/GYN physicians in our country .... Consequently, the education and training of OB/GYN 
residents and medical students by experts, such as [the petitioner], is of vital importance , in order to 
address this service gap." 
While the collective impact of medical educators is nationally significant, Dr. 
did not claim or 
demonstrate that the petitioner's individual teaching efforts have had, or will have, a significant 
impact on the claimed shortage of OB/GYN physicians and surgeons. Furthermore, the 
beneficiary's teaching duties at were in conjunction with her fellowship there, which is an 
inherently temporary step in the training process. The petitioner did not establish that any medical 
school intends to employ her as a teacher once her training is complete. 
Dr. also stated: 
(The petitioner] has also developed and facilitated international programs that foster 
exchanges of knowledge and skill. ... Specifically, [the petitioner] has travelled with 
me to India, to conduct pelvic reconstructive training conferences and hands-on 
clinical teaching sessions to physicians in India. Most notably, fthe 2etitioner is also 
the OB/GYN Co-Program Coordinator with the organization 
West Africa. 
The record contains no documentation regarding the petitioner's claimed work in India and Liberia. 
Several of the claims of individuals writing in support of the beneficiary lack primary corroboration 
in the record. 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 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion 
testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact") . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Dr. , associate professor at the "first met [the 
petitioner] during a vaginal surgery course that [she] taught at 
some of the petitioner's research projects: 
'' Dr. discussed 
One research project of which [the petitioner] is Principal Investigator has an 
educational training focus .... [The petitioner] developed a valid and reliable surgical 
skills and confidence level indicator for doctors performing the Uterosacral ligament 
suspension (USLS) procedure .... [The petitioner's] teaching module allows for 
urogynecology educators to effectively evaluate the confidence level and cognitive 
surgical skills in surgeons learning to perform this procedure for pelvic organ 
prolapse. The training module is effective in identifying areas that need to be 
addressed when performing the procedure, ensuring quality control and safety. [The 
petitioner's] teaching module has been adapted and used as a model for other surgical 
procedures in the field of gynecology. 
The record contains no documentation about the teaching module, and no evidence to show its 
implementation beyond 
Dr. added: "[The petitioner] started the organization which is a wellness 
program dedicated to providing preventative healthcare measures for Americans living in 
underserved communities." The petitioner's curriculum vitae states that she has been the founder, 
president, and chief executive officer of from "2004-Present," but the 
petitioner submits no evidence of the entity's past activity, or evidence that it remains active. Like 
her work for the the founding of predates the petitioner's graduation 
from medical school. 
Dr. editor m chief of published by the 
stated that the petitioner has served as a peer 
reviewer for the journal, an honor reserved for "scientists who have shown remarkable achievements 
and have attained international acclaim in their respective fields." Dr. stated that the 
petitioner's "research ... showed that pregnancy alone, without the effects of labour and delivery, 
has an effect on the pelvic floor." Dr. also asserted that the petitioner's "leading role as Co­
chair of has been a great contributing factor on the organizing of lecturers 
[sic], presentations, interactive symposiums, workshops, and training programs that influence the 
fields' top medical professionals and leads the direction of the research in the field." 
The petitioner did not submit documentary evidence to support the above claims regarding the 
peer review policy. The petitioner submitted printouts of electronic mail messages from editors of 
asking the petitioner to review submitted manuscripts. The messages read, in part: "If you are 
unable to perform this review, can you suggest an alternate reviewer for this manuscript." The 
messages did not instruct the petitioner to limit her suggestions to researchers with "remarkable 
achievements and ... international acclaim." All of the peer review invitations that the petitioner 
received before the petition's filing date are from the same journal, which does not suggest 
significant demand for the petitioner's services as a peer reviewer. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Several exhibits in the petitioner's initial submission, such as two published articles, conference 
presentations, and evidence of institutional research board approval of ongoing projects, concern her 
research work. The record shows that the petitioner's published and presented research was integral 
to what, at the time of filing, was her ongoing education. The petitioner did not establish that her 
research work would continue after she completed her medical education and was no longer required 
to conduct research as a condition of her fellowship. The petitioner did not submit evidence (such as 
copies of citing articles) to establish the impact that her published and presented work has had on the 
field as a whole. 
The director issued a request for evidence on April 30, 2013. The director quoted some of the letters 
submitted with the petition but concluded 
that the petitioner had not established her "ability to serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater extent than the majority of [her] colleagues." The 
director also stated: "the record does not reflect that the [petitioner's] work has resulted in findings 
in her field which ha[ve] been widely implemented." 
In response, the petitioner submitted two new letters; evidence that the petitioner has written new 
articles and new conference presentations; evidence of further peer review work for the and a 
nomination for a position on the editorial advisory board of 
The publications, invitations and other events took place after the petition's February 2013 filing 
date. An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at 
the time of filing the benefit request. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). USCIS cannot properly approve the 
petition at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary 
becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The materials are relevant only 
to the extent that they show that the petitioner continued to produce research for publication and 
presentation after the filing date. 
A July 11, 2013 electronic mail message inviting the petitioner to speak at the 
reads, in part: 
We would like to know your opinion about speaker invitation for 
We request your kind response to the following email. 
Greetings for the Day!! 
We are inviting you to avail the Speaker/Delegate opportunity at the 
which is going to be held during August at 
Theme o 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
(Emphasis in original.) The petitioner is not an endocrinologist, and therefore it is not clear why she 
would be invited as a speaker to an endocrinology conference. Grammatical errors in the message 
raise further concerns about its origin and legitimacy. For these reasons, even if the invitation had 
occurred prior to the filing date, its significance is questionable. 
A CO£Y of a certificate shows that the petitioner is a member of the 
having been "elected in recognition of exemplary service, integrity, 
clinical excellence and compassion." The general wording of the certificate offers no specific 
information about the factors underlying the petitioner's election. An official co-signed the 
certificate, indicating that the election occurred at the local chapter level. The petitioner did not 
establish the significance of this membership. The certificate is undated, but the petitioner's failure 
to mention or submit it previously suggests that it, like the other newly submitted exhibits, came into 
existence after the petition 's filing date. 
Both of the new letters are from former co-workers of the petitioner. Dr. 
section chief of 
stated: 
As her research mentor at I am very aware of [the petitioner 's] important 
research work while at and of her current work at 
[The petitioner] has made significant findings in the area of pathophysiology of pelvic 
floor disorders. . . . [L]ittle is known on the specific effects of pregnancy versus 
delivery, or childbirth ... on the pelvic floor muscles .... 
[The petitioner's] research group has previously described changes in the pelvic floor 
associated with pregnancy and vaginal delivery in the squirrel monkey. [Her] most 
recent study specifically separated the changes that occur in squirrel monkey 
pregnancy prior to vaginal delivery. Her study results showed, for the first time in the 
field, that there is a definite change that occurs in the pelvic floor muscles of female 
squirrel monkeys as [a] result of pregnancy alone, suggesting that the stress of the 
pregnancy on the muscles incites injury to the pelvic floor muscles .... 
[The petitioner's] research is absolutely critical to the study of pathophysiology of 
pelvic floor disorders. Her current research in human subjects is at a critical stage in 
helping to understand this condition .... [The petitioner] must be granted permanent 
residen[t] status in order for her to continue this landmark study in the United States 
of America. 
now 
Dr. associate professor at stated that the petitioner 
"is an established and 
highly productive member of the research and academic community." As 
noted previously, the etitioner has moved from Texas to Connecticut, indicating that she no longer 
conducts research at In wording reminiscent of Dr. earlier letter, Dr. 
asserted that the petitioner "developed valid and reliable 
surgical skills and a confidence level 
indicator as a way to assess surgical competency in vaginal procedures treating pelvic organ 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
prolapse, such as the uterosacral ligament suspension .... This has been used ... nationally, with 
physicians around the country." 
The director denied the petition on January 9, 2014. The director found that the petitioner had met 
the first two prongs of the NYSDOT national interest test concerning intrinsic merit and national 
scope, but that she had not established her impact and influence on the field as a whole. The director 
stated that the petitioner did not show that her published and presented work amount to influential 
contributions to the field, and that the record does not support claims in the submitted letters 
regarding the importance and impact of the petitioner's work. 
The document that the petitioner submitted as the appellate brief is actually a newly signed copy of 
the introductory statement that accompanied the initial filing of the petition; both copies bear the 
same date, February 21, 2013. This introductory letter described the initial exhibits and quoted from 
letters in the record. The director addressed the exhibits and the letters, and identified their 
shortcomings. The resubmitted introductory letter does not address these findings, and therefore it 
does not rebut or overcome the stated grounds for denial of the petition. 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that her influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
field of endeavor." /d. at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole") . 
As is clear from 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. 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
--------------- - -----·-··-- -------