dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
Plmuccopy 
FILE 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Deparlment of Homeland Sccurit,Y 
LS. Citi/cnship and ImmigraLion ~l:f\'il'c~ 
Administrati\c Appeals Oftic!': (;\AO) 
20 Massachusetts the .. N.\\/. MS 2()90 
Vv'ashington. I)C 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 1 8 2011 
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 flEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please tind 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 ottice. 
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 tile a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specilic requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the oftlce that originally decided your case by tiling a Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion. with a fce of$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) requires that any motion must be 
liled within 30 days orthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you. 
~~~ 
,5.:erry Rhew 
Chief. Administrative Appeals Office 
www.llscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Otlice (AAO) 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 an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a physician-scientist. The petitioner 
asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job otTer, and thus of an alien employment 
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 had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job ofTer would bc in the 
national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel submits a statement. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's 
findings. Ultimately, nothing in the record demonstrates how the national interest in securing 
sutliciently trained medical geneticists, an area in which there is alleged to be an extreme sh0l1age. 
would not be served by the alien employment certification process, a process designed to address this 
exact situation. 
While we will evaluate all of the evidence below, we note that three references who claim no personal 
knowledge of the petitioner have all worked at the same institutions as the petitioner according to their 
curriculum vitae. Specifically, in 2009. who has a Ph.D. in marine biology rather 
than medicine. asserts that his evaluation is. not base~sonal knowledge" of the petitioner. 
According to his curriculum vitae. however. in 2009 _ took his leave at Baylor 
College of Medicine where the petitioner has worked since 2006. on his 
curriculum vitae that at Baylor, he worked in the laboratory of the principal 
investigator of the petitioner's clinical studies at Baylor. 
asserts that 
house-stafl~at 
Moreover. _ explicitly states that the 
criteria to join" and requires "a demonstration 
detail below, however, this assertion is contradicted by the record. 
as 
credibility of the authors' remaining statements. 
"",p,..t< that his evaluation is "not 
'''l."~ll''U curriculum vitae, however,_ served 
The misleading claims in these letters reduce the 
Page 3 
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 
benetit 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. 
(8) Waiver of job oiler. 
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (Al 
that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
On appeaL counsel asserts that the petitioner is also an alien of exceptional ability. The issue of 
exceptional ability, however, is moot because the record establishes that the petitioner holds a medical 
degree from Gandhi Medical College. The petitioner's occupation falls within the pertinent regulatory 
definition of a profession. The petitioner thus qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The remaining issue is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job 
ofter requirement, and thus an alien employment certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress 
did not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "in the national interest:' The Committee on the 
.J udiciary 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, IOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as l1exible as 
possible, although elearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must 
make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benetit" [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 otTer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Page 4 
Maller ojNew York Slale Dep'( oj Transp , 22 I&N Dec, 215. 217-18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinatier 
"NYSDOT'). 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. Jd. at 2 I 7, Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed henetit will he 
national in scope, Jd. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a suhstantially greater degree than would an available U.S, worker having the 
same minimum qualitications, Jd. at 217-18, 
It must be noted that. while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benetit. the 
petitioner must establish that the alien's past record justifies projections offuture benetit to the national 
interest. Jd, at 219, 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 he entirely speculative, Id. 
We concur with thc director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit. The director thcn 
questioned whether the proposed benetits of the petitioncr's work would be national in scope, In her 
initial cover letter, counsel asserted that the petitioner has reached a large and distinguished audience 
through his publications and presentations, is one of the most talented geneticists nationally and 
"frequently treats patients from ditferent parts of the country on referral." 
On appeal. counsel asserts that the petitioner is "able to master many of the most advanced 
procedures in the tield and also to teach these procedures to peers, both junior and senior. thereby 
creating a ripple efTect in making the performance of these very important cutting-edge modern 
procedures more widespread on a national level." Counscl then asserts that the petitioner's "prolific 
record of publication and presentation" also demonstrates a national impact. 
In addressing this issue in NYSDOT, the AAO stated: 
[T]he analysis we follow in "national interest" cases under section 203(b )(2)(8) of the 
Act diners trom that for standard "exceptional ability" cases under section 203(b)(2)(A) 
of the Act. In the latter type of case, the local labor market is considered through the 
labor certitication process and the activity performed by the alien need not have a 
national eftect. For instance. pro bono legal services as a whole serve the national 
interest, but the impact of an individual attorney working pro bono would he so 
attenuated at the national level as to he negligible, Similarly. while education is in the 
national interest, the impact of a single schoolteacher in one elementary school would 
not be in the national interest for purposes of waiving the job ofTer requirement of 
section 203(b)(2)(8) of the Act. As another example, while nutrition has obvious 
-Page 5 
intrinsic value, the work of one cook in onc restaurant could not be considered 
sutliciently in the national interest for purposes of this provision of the Act. 
Id. at 217, n.3. Signilicantly, Congress is presumed to be aware of existing administrative and 
judicial intcrpretation of statute when it reenacts a statute. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575. 580 
(1978). In this instance. Congress' awareness of NYSDOT is a matter not of presumption. but of 
demonstrable fact. In 1999, Congress amended section 203(b)(2) of the Act in direct response to the 
1998 precedent decision. Congress, at that time. could have taken any number of actions to limit. 
modify. or completely reverse the precedent decision. such as by applying the waiver to all 
physicians practicing in a complicated specialty and/or at a prestigious medical center. Instead. 
Congress let the decision stand, apart from a limited exception for certain physicians working in 
shortage areas. as described in section 203(b)(2)(8)(ii) of the Act. While the petitioner submitted 
reports attesting to a shortage of physicians in general and specialists in medical genetics 
specifically. the petitioner does not seek a waiver under this provision. Because Congress has made 
no further statutory changes in the decade since NYSDOT. we can presume that Congress has no 
furthcr objection to the precedent decision. 
Applying the above reasoning quoted from NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3, to the matter before 
us. the treatment of patients at a single hospital does not result in benefits that are discernible at the 
national level. Similarly, training subordinates in procedures developed by others provides bene!its 
that are negligible at the national level. Thus, the only means by whieh the petitioner could qualify 
for a waiver of the alien employment certification process is through his research experience. 
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. Eligibility for the 
waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position sought. In other 
words. we generally do not accept the argument that a given project is so important that any alien 
qualified to work on this project must also qualifY for a national interest waiver. NYSDOT. 22 I&N 
Dec. at 218. Moreover, it cannot suflice to state that the alien possesses useful skills. or a "unique 
background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national 
interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States 
is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. !d. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, we note that original 
innovation. such as demonstrated by a patent. is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
Page 6 
Counsel Awards and Distinctions." The exhibit includes a 
individual or entity had nominated the 
a candidate for the Award in Medical Genetics." According to. 
the award includes a $20,000 cash prize. The petitioner submitted Internet materials 
about the award confirming that it is desig~ysician or scientist "completing his or her 
training in the area of medical genetics." __ states that eligible candidates must have 
completed, within the four all of the training leading to American Board of Medical 
Genetics certification. advises that if the petitioner wishes to pursue his "candidacy" 
for the award, he must to the award committee, including his curriculum 
vitae. an exemplar of recommendation. Given the entire content of the letter. it 
does not appear that the nomination process evaluated the petitioner's eligibility as a candidate or 
included any recommendation letters. Rather, the "nomination" appears to be more of an invitation to 
nominate himself. Regardless, the petitioner submitted no evidence that he pursued his candidacy. that 
only a select few physician trainees received nominations or, more significantly, that he actually won 
this prize. 
letter from 
_ confirms that the pt:'.llIIJIIt;r 
explains that this is a coveted track that enrolls the best house staff physicians and, at present, has only 
four physicians enrolled. While competitive, it remains that a residency program is still a training 
program. Enrollment in an on-the-job training program is not indicative of a track record of success 
with some degree of influence in the field as a whole. 
Counsel also included in this exhibit a certificate from Fairview Hospital recognizing the petitioner as 
July 1,2004 - June 30, 2005. Such local recognition from the petitioner's 
own employer cannot demonstrate his influence in the field beyond that employer. 
Finally. counsel included the petitioner'S examination results and a certificate from Gandhi Medical 
College acknowledging the petitioner's thesis on depression and diabetes and certifying his 
adjudication as "Best Outgoing Student." Academic performance. measured by such criteria as grade 
point average, cannot alone satisfy the national interest threshold or assure substantial prospective 
national benetit. NYSDOT. 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. In all cases the petitioner must demonstrate 
specific prior achievements that establish the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. Id None 
of the petitioner's academic achievements demonstrate his influence in the field of medical genetics. 
the area in which he proposes to benefit the national interest. 
Even if we considered the abovc evidence to rise to the level of recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities or professional or 
business organizations. such recognition is merely one category of evidence a petitioner may submit 
to demonstrate exceptional ability, a classification that normally requires an approved alien 
-Page 7 
employment certification. Section 203(b)(2) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). Because 
exceptional ability, by itself, does not justify a waiver of the alien employment certilication 
requirement. arguments hinging on recognition for achievements and significant contributions, while 
relevant. are not dispositive to the matter at hand. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 222. 
Similarly, the petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the American College of Physicians 
(ACP). Contrary to assertions, the materials from the association's website, submittcd by 
the petitioner, reveal that the ACP is open to physicians who have been certified in internal medicine or 
a combined internal medicine specialty or neurology. The website materials do not state or suggest that 
candidates must provide evidence demonstrating excellence in the field as stated by_. The 
petitioner also submitted evidence of his membership in the American Society of Human Genetics 
(ASHG). According to the materials submitted, ASHG is the primary professional membership 
organization for human genetics specialists worldwide with 8,000 active members. The petitioner did 
not submit evidence of ASHG's membership requirements. Once again, professional memberships are 
merely one category of evidence that may be used to establish exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). We reiterate that, because exceptional ability, by itself, does not justify a waiver of 
the alien employment certification requirement. arguments hinging on prolessional memberships, while 
relevant, are not dispositive to the matter at hand. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 222. The record 
contains no evidence that these memberships are indicative of a track record of success with some 
degree of intluence on the lield as a whole. Rather, they appear commensurate with any physician 
practicing in the petitioner's area of specialty. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he had coauthored two articles related to medical 
genetics, a letter to the editor of on hereditary hemorrhagic 
telangiectasia and four abstracts, none to medical genetics. The also 
submitted two unpublished manuscripts, one of which was under review with 
. The petitioncr also submitted evidence of lour poster presentations. Finally, the 
petitioner submitted evidence of his presentation at a Baylor College of Medicine Molecular and 
Human Genetics Retreat. 
The petitioner submitted evidence regarding the prestige of the journals that carried the petitioner's 
articles and the conlerences where he displayed his poster presentations. We will not, however, 
presume the inl1uence of the articles, abstracts and poster presentations from the journals and 
conlerences in which or at which they appeared. Rather, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate the 
impact of the individual article or presentation. 
the petitioner submitted evidence that __ 
lists one of the petitioner's articles in its 
IlJ~:lctl)lIy on copy number variations (2009). The petitioner's article is one of at least 37 articles in 
the bibliography. In addition, the Rare Chromosome Disorder Support Group's newsletter, Unique, 
advises that rcscarchers at Baylor "have suggested that a 6q25.2q25.3 microdeletion syndrome exists:' 
citing one of the petitioner's articles for the details of this study. In addition, a listing of 81 current 
Page 8 
papers for a week in March 2009 on the online Schizophrenia Research Forum includes one of the 
petitioner's articles. This evidence reveals that the petitioner's research is accessible. More 
specilically, his work is minimally referenced in a support group newsletter not aimed at other medical 
geneticists and in large bibliographies. This evidence does not, however, demonstrate any influence in 
the lield. 
letter from 
thanking the s inl1uence 
beyond Houston, where he currently works, and Fairview Hospital. where he previously worked. 
Counsel included an exhibit entitled In this exhl 
asserts that the petitioner has been co-investigator" lor his research studies. The review board 
materials however, do not support this assertion. On all of these 
documents, is listed as the principal investigator and the petitioner is 
listed as one of several co-investigators, none of whom are identilied as a "lead co-investigator.'· 
Also included in this exhibit is a letter who advises that the petitioner was a 
house-staff physician at Fairview Hospital Irom 2004 through 2006, which inv~ 
training rotating medical students and lower level residents in internal medicine. ~ 
does not explain how this role demonstrates the petitioner's influence in the lield of genetic medicine. 
Rather, it appears that the petitioner's role there was commensurate with his level of training. 
In addition. 
asserts that the petitioner has been "actively involved with interviewing candidates lor medical genetics 
residency and leIlowship positions." While these duties may have value lor Baylor, they do not 
demonstrate the petitioner's influence in the lield of medical genetics as a whole. 
The last evidence included in this exhibit is a letter 
_, who asserts that the petitioner has been involved in the teaching of medical students and 
residents at Baylor. Once again, this evidence does not demonstrate the petitioner's influence beyond 
his employer. We stress that the lact that some of these students and residents may move to other 
locations does not demonstrate the petitioner's track record of success with some degree of influence on 
the lield as a whole. In other words, the waiver is not a blanket waiver lor any alien who has ever 
instructed a subordinate or student. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
petitioner to review 
on m Medicine and Research. This request 
appears to be an inlormal request from a colleague in Houston rather than an independent request Irom 
-Page 9 
the publisher of the textbook. This letter does not demonstrate the inf1uence of the petitioner"s work 
beyond Houston. 
The remaining evidence consists of reference letters. some of which contain hyperbolic conclusions 
inconsistent with the remaining evidence of record. As stated above, some of the references also 
misrepresent their level of personal knowledge of the petitioner, reducing the credibility of their 
remaining statements. 
asserts that the petitioner has 
developed a subspecialty in adult genetics and the interpretation of results of genetic testing. 
Specifically,_ asserts that "few of his peers in adult genetics have the significant amount of 
training necessary to accurately discern the results of these state-of-the-art genetic tests." 
implication that the majority of adult geneticists do not have the necessary training to read the results of 
genetics tests is disturbing and requires supporting evidence, such as the results of a major study. 
Regardless. special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest 
threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an 
issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
further asserts that the petitioner has also distinguished himself by evaluating and 
treating patients with inherited bone disease at "the world-class facility, the Skeletal Dysplasia Clinic 
at the Texas which is the primary pediatric teaching hospital of Baylor College 
of Medicine."' provides no examples of the petitioner's novel evaluation and treatment 
techniques or how those techniques have influenced the field as a whole. Rather, he asserts that the 
petitioner is a "lead co-investigator" of one study and an investigator of another study. As stated 
above, the review board materials submitted do not distinguish the petitioner from his co­
investigators. Regardless, without evidence of how these studies have already influenced the field. 
the petitioner"s role in these studies is not persuasive evidence. 
next discusses the petitioner's work at Baylor's metabolic clinic. "a national and 
international referral center for inborn errors of metabolism." concludes that the 
petitioner "is one of less than three hundred physicians in the nation who have the skills to control 
the complex abnormalities observed in these patients." Once again, the issue of whether similarly­
trained workers are available in the United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department 
of Labor. Id. Moreover, simple exposure to advanced technology constitutes, essentially, occupational 
training that can be articulated on an application for an alien employment certification. Id. Special or 
unusual knowledge or training, while perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. employer, does not 
inherently meet the national interest threshold. Id. provides no examples of independent 
hospitals that have been influenced by the petitioner's work with genetic metabolic conditions. 
In addition, _ asserts that the petitioner has a "renown reputation" based on his results .• 
_ then provides an anecdote where the petitioner conducted the necessary tests to determine that 
the blood of an infant sufIering seizures had high ammonia levels which were then treated._ 
-Page 10 
concludes that due to the petitioner's insight, "the infant was maintained in a metabolically stable state 
until he wa~t a liver transplant, which is the only definitive treatment for the intimt's 
condition." _ does not provide statistics that would support a conclusion that most infants 
with this condition die because the treating physician was unaware of the necessary tests. _ 
also fails to provide examples of hospitals that, due to this case, are now performing previously 
unperformed tests on seizing infants. While we do not question the importance of the petitioner's 
actions for this patient, his ability to perform life saving actions as a physician is not necessarily 
indicative of his influence on the field of genetic medicine. 
Finally,_ asserts that the petitioner developed "a novel mouse model with a detect in nitric 
oxide synthesis in the pancreatic cells that will help understand its role in diabetes mellitus." As stated 
above, original innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insutlicient by itself. ld. at 22 Ln. 7. 
Whether the innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. 
Id. does not provide examples of other independent research teams using this mouse 
_ asserts that the petitioner "employed a cutting-edge technique called comparative genomic 
hybridization to detect the loss of gain of genetic material." _further asserts that through this 
process, the petitioner "has described three novel microdeletion syndromes and has delineated at 
minimum five genes that cause intellectual impairment." _ concludes that this work has 
"revolutionized the way patients with intellectual impairments are being evaluated, treated, and 
counseled." If true, it would seem that substantial objective evidence would be available, such as new 
guidelines for multiple hospitals citing this work and letters from high level officials at independent 
hospitals confirming a change in evaluation, treatment and counseling techniques based on the 
petitioner's work. The record contains no such evidence. In fact, the record does not even contain 
evidence that this work has been cited in articles that apply this work. Without such evidence,. 
_ statement seems hyperbolic, especially in light of his misrepresentation of his personal 
association with the petitioner. 
associatIOn petitioner. 
crt,dentials and concludes that the petitioner enjoys acclaim 
among geneticists around the world:' This statement appears highly conclusory and unsupported by 
examples of the petitioner's work actually being applied in the field rather than simply disseminated. 
USClS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions.' 
an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine with no 
disclosed aSSOCiatIon with the petitioner, also states that the petitioner "has achieved national and 
international recognition and extraordinary distinction for his clinical work and research studies that 
place him at the top of his field and among the highest tier of physician-scientists in the country:' The 
I 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General olthe United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dis!. 1990). 
--Page II 
accomplishments of the petitioner's references, however, overwhelmingly dwarf the petitioner's record. 
F or example. _ chairs a department, has authored 20 papers cited 100 times or more. serves 
on four editorial boards and lists numerous mentored students on his curriculum. While we 
acknowledge that the petitioner need not demonstrate this level of recognition for the bene tit sought. 
the lack of evidence supporting this clearly hyperbolic conclusion credibility. 
notes that the National Institutes of Health (Nil I) supports the petitioner's research. 
It can be argued, however. that most research, in order to receive funding, must present some benefit 
to the general pool of scientific knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher working with a 
government grant inherently serves the national interest to an extent that justifies a waiver of the 
alien employment certilication requirement. 
further asserts that the petitioner's studies "have had a broad impact on diseases that 
" As stated above, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory 
assertions. 2 provides no examples of this impact and does not suggest that Johns 
Hopkins has adopted guidelines based on the petitioner's work or otherwise changed its evaluation 
and treatment standards based on the petitioner's work. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g, Maller o/S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing eases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary cvidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
cvidence lacks specificity. detail. or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Maller 0/ Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the lield are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may. in its discretion, usc as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Maller 
0/ Caron Inlernalional. 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However. USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the tinal determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 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 Malter 0/ 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. Id. at 795; see also Maller ojSoffici. 22 I&N Dec. 158. 
165 (Comm·r. 1998) (citing Maller 0/ Treasure Crafi oj CaiijiJrnia. 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!, 
Comm·r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of widespread notoriety without 
providing speci tic examples of how those innovations have int1uenced the field. Merely repeating 
, 1756. Inc .. 745 F. Supp. at 15. 
Page 12 
the legal standards for the benefit sought does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.' The 
purportedly independent letters do not suggest the authors have applied the beneficiary's work. The 
petitioner also failed to submit suflicient corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation 
of the petition. which could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
As is clear Irom a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualilied to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of ajob 
otTer 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 alien employment certification will be in 
the national interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act. 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This denial is without prejudice to the tiling of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by an alien employment certilication certilied by the Department of Labor. appropriate 
supporting evidence and tee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
'Fedin Bros. Co .. Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Stipp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aftd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990): 
Avyr Associates. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756. Inc .. 745 F. Supp. at 15.