dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
DegreeoranAlienof ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvised
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your casemust be made to that office.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyou wish to haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith theinstructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion, with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directlywith theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiledwithin
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscas.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition. TheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) dismissedthepetitioner'sappeal.Subsequently,
thepetitionerfiled a motionto reopenandreconsider.TheAAO dismissedthemotionto reconsider,
grantedthe motionto reopenandaffirmedits prior decision.Thematteris nowbeforetheAAO on
anothermotionto reopen.TheAAO will grantthemotionandaffirm thedismissalof theappeal.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationpursuantto section203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct
(theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asanalienof exceptionalability in thesciencesandasa memberof
theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree.Thepetitionerseeksemploymentasaphysician.After
trainingatEastTennesseeStateUniversity(ETSU),JohnsonCity,hebeganhiscurrentemploymentat
Universityof Iowa(UI) CommunityMedicalServices.Thepetitionerassertsthatanexemptionfrom
therequirementof ajob offer,andthusof a laborcertification,is in thenationalinterestof theUnited
States.Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerqualifiesfor classificationasamemberof theprofessions
holdingan advanceddegree,but that the petitionerhasnot establishedthat an exemptionfrom the
requirementof ajob ofTerwouldbein thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.TheAAO hastwice
affirmedthatdecision.
On motion,the petitionersubmitsa brief from counsel;a witnessletter;documentationregarding
recentemployment;andvariousbackgroundmaterials.
A motion to reopenmust statethe new factsto be proved in the reopenedproceedingand be
supportedby affidavitsor otherdocumentaryevidence. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2).Thepetitioner's
latestfiling includesevidenceintendedto addressissuesthat the AAO newly raisedin its prior
decision.Therefore,theAAO will grantthemotionin orderto considerthatevidence.
Thepetitionerfiled the FormI-140petitionon June23, 2010. Thedirectordeniedthe petitionon
August31,2010,andtheAAO dismissedthepetitioner'sappealon December15,2011. TheAAO
issuedits subsequentdecisionon motion on July 23, 2012. The AAO incorporatestheseprior
decisionsby reference,andwill quoteor summarizerelevantpassagesasnecessaryin the present
decision.
Section203(b)ofthe Act states,in pertinentpart:
(2) Aliens Who Are Membersof the ProfessionsHoldingAdvancedDegreesor Aliensof
ExceptionalAbility. -
(A) In General.- Visasshallbemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho are
membersof the professionsholding advanceddegreesor their equivalentor who
becauseof their exceptionalability in the sciences,arts,or business,will substantially
benefitprospectivelythenationaleconomy,culturalor educationalinterests,or welfare
of theUnitedStates,andwhoseservicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or business
aresoughtby anemployerintheUnitedStates.
(B)Waiverof JobOffer-
Page3
(i) . . . theAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttomeyGeneraldeemsit to bein
thenationalinterest,waivetherequirementsof subparagraph(A) thatanalien's
servicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or businessbesoughtby anemployer
in theUnitedStates.
Neither the statutenor the regulationsprovide substantiveguidanceregardinghow to establish
eligibility for the nationalinterestwaiver. Matter of New York StateDept. of Transportation
(NYSDOT),22I&N Dec.215(Act. Assoc.Comm'r 1998),hassetfotthseveralfactorswhichmustbe
consideredwhenevaluatingarequestfor anationalinterestwaiver. First,thepetitionermustshowthat
thealienseeksemploymentin anareaof substantialintrinsicmerit. Next,thepetitionermustshowthat
theproposedbenefitwill benationalin scope.Finally,thepetitionerseekingthewaivermustestablish
thatthealienwill servethenationalinterestto a substantiallygreaterdegreethanwouldanavailable
U.S.workerhavingthesameminimumqualifications.
Onthepetitionform,thepetitioneridentifiedhis intendedoccupationas"physician,"andhisjob title
as"physician,surgeon,osteopath."Thepetitioner'searliestevidentiarysubmissionindicatedthathe
wasinvolvedin researchat ETSU,but it alsoshowedthatthepetitioner'spositionthereamountedto
trainingratherthanacareerposition.
The director,in denyingthe petition,foundthat the petitionerhadnot establishedthat the benefit
arisingfromhisintendedfutureemploymentwouldbenationalin scope.Thedirectorconcludedthat
the petitioner's"impact will be limited to the hospitalin which he will practice;therefore,the
benefitof hisskillswill belimitedto asmallarea."
In its dismissaldecisionof December2011,theAAO stated:
Counselasserts[onappeal]thatthepetitioner's"work towardsthecureof cancer[is]
national in scope." Publishedresearchis national in scope,but the petitioner's
minimal researchrecordappearsto be tied to his ongoingtraining at ETSU. The
record is devoid of evidencethat the petitioner will be a researcher,rather than a
clinical oncologist, after he completeshis training. Furthermore,the only research
that the petitioner appearsto havebeenconductingasof the petition's filing dateis
theoft-toutedNIH projectwhich,accordingto witnesses,concerns"communication
with cancerpatients"ratherthan"the cureof cancer."
Onmotionfrom theAAO's first decision,counselstatedthat"it wasnot reasonablefor theA.A.O.
to concludethat cancerresearchwork in one location could not have nationalimplicationsor
benefits." The AAO, in its seconddecision,observedthattherehadbeenno finding that "cancer
researchwork" lackednationalscope. Rather,the AAO restatedthe finding that therewas no
evidencethatthepetitionerwouldcontinueto performresearchoncehistrainingwascomplete.
The petitionersubmitteda copyof a "Letter to the Editor" that appearedin the online editionof
BoneMarrow Transplantationon November14,2011,written by four authors,includingone
" affiliatedwith VanderbiltUniversityMedicalCenterandVeteransAffairs MedicalCenter,
Page4
both in Nashville,Tennessee.The petitionerhadnot previouslyclaimedaffiliation with eitherof
thoseentities.
In its seconddecision,the AAO observedthat the "Letter to the Editor" did not establishthat
was an activeresearcher.Rather,the lettercited an articlethat did not name
amongits authors. The AAO concluded:"The letter doesnot re ort new original research,but
rathercommentson prior researchby authorsotherthan at an institutionwherethe
petitionerhasneverbeforeclaimedemployment.The letteris not evidencethatthe petitionerhas
engagedin researchsinceheleft Tennesseefor Iowain mid-2011."
The petitioner'ssecondand latestmotion includesa copy of a March 21, 2011 letter from M
associatedeanof graduatemedicaleducationat VanderbiltUniversityMedical
Center(VUMC), approvingthe petitioner'srequestfor a 30-day "electiverotation . . . in the
Divisionof HematologyandOncology. . . for theperiodof 4/1/2011through4/30/2011."
anassociateprofessoratVUMC workedwith thepetitioner"duringhisBone
marrowtransplantrotationin April 2011." observedthatheandthepetitionerwereco-
authorsof a piecethat appearedin "one of the mostreputedinternationaljournalsin the field of
bonemarrowtransplant."Thatcollaborativework, however,wassimplythe "Letterto theEditor"
thattheAAO hasalreadydiscussedin somedetail.
A printout from the publisher'sweb site states:"BoneMarrow Transplantationpublisheshigh
quality, peerreviewedoriginal research." Citing this printout, counselstates:"No distinctionis
madebasedupon the format of presentationof the original research,suggestingthat the format of
the articleasa 'Letterto the Editor' [is] of no relevanceto its importance."Therecord,however,
doesnot showthatthe"Letterto theEditor" isapeer-reviewedarticlethatreportsnewresearch;the
quotedpassagefrom thewebsitedoesnot indicatethateverythingin thejournal constitutes"peer
reviewedoriginal research."Thepetitioner'slatestsubmissiondoesnot addressor overcomethe
AAO's findingsregardingthepiece.
The new evidenceplacesthe petitioner at VUMC shortly before the writing of the "Letter to the
Editor," andto that extentit addressesa concernraisedin the prior AAO decision. The rotation at
VUMC, however, was short-term. A referenceto "the Office of GraduateMedical Education"
suggeststhat this rotationwas part of the petitioner'songoingtraining. The AAO hadalready
acknowledgedthatthepetitionerperformedresearchaspart of his temporarytrainingduties. The
newevidencefromVUMC, therefore,describesmoreof thesame.
The petitioner's first motion also includedevidencereportingthe petitioner's "appointmentas
CancerLiaisonPhysician(CLP) at RegionalCares- OttumwaRegionalHealthCenter,"for three
yearsbeginningJuly 1, 2011. TheAAO observedthatthe letterdescribingthe appointment"does
not indicatethat a CLP's dutiesincludeactiveparticipationin cancerresearch.Rather,the letter
indicatesthat the CLP is responsiblefor makingsurethat the CLP's own employinginstitution
complieswith CoCgoalsandpractices.As such,the letterdoesnot showthat a CLP'sdutiesare
nationalin scope."
Page5
On motion, the petitionersubmitsdocumentationfrom summer2011, reflectingthe petitioner's
registrationas a "participatingmember"of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breastand Bowel
Project(NSABP)andhisone-yearregistrationasan"investigator"by theNationalCancerInstitute
(NCI). A June26,2011letterfrom theNCI indicatesthat"investigators"administerexperimental
drugsto patientsaspartof theclinicaltrial process.A printoutfromtheNSABPwebsiteindicates
that"morethan5000physicians,nurses,andothermedicalprofessionalsconductNSABPtreatment
and preventiontrials." The scaleof the operationdoesnot indicatethat everyparticipantis a
"researcher"in any significant senseof the word. Rather, the evidenceindicatesthat the
"physicians,nurses,andothermedicalprofessionals"administerexperimentaldrugson behalfthe
researcherswhoarestudyingthosedrugs,andfollow (ratherthanestablish)protocolsestablishedby
thoseresearchers.
At aboutthesametime asthepetitionerbecameinvolvedwith theNSABP,Ul's CarverCollegeof
Medicineofferedthepetitionera three-yearappointmentasanadjunctclinical assistantprofessor,
beginningJuly 1,2012. TheJune22,2012job offer reads,in part:
You will be askedto participateandpresentat Fellowteachingconferences.Also
you may be askedto offer an electiverotation for CarverCollegeof Medicine
medical studentsand/ora rotation for Fellows at the UI Medical Oncologyand
Hematology,OttumwaClinic. You will be the on-sitesupervisingphysicianfor
theselearners.
You maybe consideredfor promotionany time after the first threeyearsof your
appointment.. . . Briefly, promotionwill be basedon evidenceof an appropriate
amountof high quality teaching,good clinical service, and evidenceof other
contributionsto themissionsof theCarverCollegeof Medicine.
The letter doesnot mentionresearch. It is particularlysignificantthat the specifiedcriteria for
promotioninclude "high quality teaching"and "good clinical service,"but not participationin
research.Furthermore,while the petitioner"may be askedto offer anelectiverotation . . . at the UI
Medical Oncology and Hematology, Ottumwa Clinic," the position's primary responsibilities are
not in eitherof thosespecialties.Instead,thejob offer is from the Departmentof InternalMedicine.
The materials submitted on motion do not establishthat the petitioner is engagedin ongoing
medicalresearch,or thatthe AAO reachedincorrectconclusionsin its pastdecisions.
Theburdenof proof in theseproceedingsrestssolelywith the petitioner. Section291 of the Act,
8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Themotionto reopenis granted. TheAAO's previousdecisionof July 23, 2012is
affirmed.Thepetitionremainsdeniedandtheappealremainsdismissed.