dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

PUBLICCOPV 
DATE: OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
MAY 11 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 
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. 
1", ... 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
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 under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a physician specializing in internal medicine and rheumatology. 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 a statement and several witness letters. 
Before the filing of the appeal, attorney represented the petitioner. 
prepared a~ request for evidence (RFE), including a cover letter on 
letterhead. ~ mailed the RFE response from his Michigan address, rather than from the 
petitioner's Ohio address. Subsequently, however did not prepare or sign the Form 
I-290B Notice of Appeal; the petitioner's personal statement on appeal includes no mention of legal 
representation; and the petitioner mailed the appeal from her own Ohio address. Form I-290B advises 
that attorneys "must attach a Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative" 
to the appeal, as required by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 292.4(a). The appeal does not include this form. Therefore, the record contains no indication 
that _ is still the petitioner's attorney of record, and several indications that he is not. The 
AAO will therefore consider the petitioner to be self-represented, and the term "prior counsel" shall 
refer 
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-
Page 3 
(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, lOlstCong., lstSess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, 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 (NYSDOT), 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 United States 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 proj ections 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. 
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 
Page 4 
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 1-140 petition on October 13, 2010. In an accompanying introductory 
statement, prior counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] seeks employment in the field of medical research, with particular 
emphasis in Internal Medicine and Rheumatology .... 
Her advanced research indeed justifies her projected future benefit to the U.S. 
national interest. [The petitioner's] prior achievements have benefited her field to a 
greater degree than research done by others working in the field. Her 
accomplishments have set her apart from other[ s] in the field to the extent that she is a 
foremost expert. 
... A U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications would indeed not have [the 
petitioner's] talents and expertise, and therefore could not serve the national interest 
to a similar degree .... 
[The petitioner] has made many pioneering research accomplishments in the field of 
internal medicine and rheumatology. 
The intrinsic merit and national scope of medical research are not in dispute in this proceeding. The 
issue, instead, is the extent of the petitioner's impact and influence on her field. Prior counsel called 
the petitioner "a pioneer in the field, using her expertise in Internal Medicine and Rheumatology to 
revolutionize medical research and practice with respect to patients suffering from musculoskeletal 
conditions," and stated that the petitioner's "extraordinary accomplishments in medical research 
have resulted in wide recognition" and "[ e ]xtensive acclaim from leading experts in the field." The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Therefore, it is necessary to determine how well the 
record supports prior counsel's claims. 
Five witness letters accompanied the initial filing of the petition. 
for Prince William County (Virginia) Community Services Board, stated: "I have known 
petitioner] since her high school. I was her mentor when she considered [traveling to the] United States 
for further medical training." ~ praised the petitioner's academic achievements and personal 
character, and stated that the petItIOner's "breadth of research, clinical skills, commitment to pati~ 
and focus on teaching others shows that she truly is an indispensible and extraordinary person." _ 
_ whose own training is in psychiatry, claimed no training or expertise in either internal medicine 
or rheumatology. 
Page 5 
The remaining letters are all from faculty members at institutions where the 
trained. The submitted a letter 
at The letter is undated, but assertion that 
the petitioner "is III 2008" shows that the letter must predate the 
petitioner's graduation. asserted that the petitioner "stood out academically" and 
"performed very well during her pre-clinical years," and "continues to shine in extracurricular 
activities." 21. IE concluded by stating: "I am confident that she will make a wonderful doctor." 
•••••• letter is an enthusiastic but general letter of recommendation, dating from a time before 
the petitioner was a fully qualified physician. 
at the Universi!l.2!..... 
Cincinnati (UC), Ohio, stated that the petitioner "has distinguished herself since her arrival here." _ 
_ focused on the petitioner's clinical skills, stating that the petitioner "is certified to perform 
several procedures that not all first-year residents are capable of. These include paracentisis, 
thoracentesis, arterial blood gases, nasogastric intubation, and reading chest x-rays." _ also 
praised the petitioner's teaching abilities. Only one sentence of the letter concerned the petitioner's 
research work, acknowledging the petitioner's collaboration on "a study differentiating between 
unforeseen fatal esophageal hemorrhage and end-stage renal disease." 
[A]s an intern [the petitioner] did an inpatient medicine ward rotation with me as 
attending at the V AMC where 1 had the pleasure to work with her on [a] daily basis. 
[The petitioner] demonstrated her medical knowledge in the care of patients and 
practiced with compassion and proficiency .... With her clinical expertise, ability to 
learn, and strong research interests, there is no doubt in my mind that she will continue 
to succeed. 
_ stated that the petitioner "has significant accomplishments in medical research," but does 
not elaborate on the nature or impact of those accomplishments. _ praised the petitioner in the 
context not of an established researcher, but that of a trainee, stating "she is at the top of her field for a 
medical resident." 
Atlanta, Georgia, stated: "I first 
in 2008, where I am 
and 
s 
research work without providing substantive information The petitioner does not 
claim that her current work involves pediatric hematology, oncology, or bone marrow transplantation, 
which areas of expertise. 
Page 6 
The letters, overall, show that the petitioner has made a positive impression on her mentors, but do not 
demonstrate that she has had a particularly significant impact outside of the institutions where she has 
studied, trained and worked. 
Prior counsel repeatedly stressed that one sign of the petitioner's acclaim and ability was her authorship 
of peer-reviewed journal papers. Prior counsel did not claim that the petitioner's articles stand out from 
articles by others. Rather, prior counsel asserted that the very existence of the articles demonstrated 
"wide recognition" of the petitioner's "extraordinary accomplishments in medical research." Prior 
counsel cited no evidence to show that publication is a noteworthy achievement, rather than a routine 
and expected function of scientific researchers. 
In a statement accompanying the initial filing, the petitioner stated that her published work "has ... 
been cited by many national and international prestigious journals and researchers." The petitioner 
submitted documentation showing an aggregate total of nine citations for three of her articles (cited two, 
three and four times, respectively). The petitioner submitted no evidence to show that this citation rate 
is out of the ordinary in her field. 
The petitioner's initial submission also included background information about a shortage of 
rheumatologists. The USCIS regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.12 discuss these requirements in further 
detail. In this instance, however, the petitioner has not followed any of those procedures. The 
petitioner has simply asserted that there is a shortage and that it is in the national interest to grant a 
waiver to her, as a highly qualified rheumatologist. Congress established the procedures for 
shortage-based physician waivers at section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, and USCIS has neither the 
authority nor the discretion to disregard the statutory requirements. By law, it cannot suffice for the 
petitioner to document a shortage of physicians in her specialty and leave it at that. 
The director issued a request for evidence on March 28, 2011, instructing the petitioner to submit 
documentary evidence to establish the significance and impact of her research work. In response, 
prior counsel asserted that the petitioner "is a leading researcher in the field of Rheumatology," and 
that her "innovative research has enormous implications for the treatment of patients with rheumatis 
[sic] conditions both in the United States and in the international medical community." Prior 
counsel claimed that the petitioner's "pioneering research work has had a substantial degree of 
influence throughout the world" and that her "pioneering achievements ... have led to his [sic] 
recognition by many experts in the field of Rheumatology." Prior counsel contended that the 
citation of the petitioner's published work "is a clear mark that [the petitioner] is one of the top 
researchers in the field of Rheumatology in the United States today." 
Prior counsel claimed three reasons why holding the petitioner to the job offer/labor certification 
requirement would be against the national interest. First, the petitioner's "skills are urgently needed 
now in the United States." Prior counsel claimed that "the regular immigration process which 
requires a labor certification is taking nearly 5 years to complete. Should Americans be forced to 
wait for 5 years before [the petitioner's] talents are put to use in America?" At the time prior 
counsel wrote those words, the petitioner was already working in the United States. Prior counsel 
Page 7 
did not explain why the labor certification process would inevitably result in the petitioner's inability 
to work in the United States until the process was complete. 
Second, prior counsel claimed that the petitioner "will likely receive grants and will act as an 
independent researcher or consultant to U.S. research institutions and will not work for anyone 
traditional employer." This statement amounts to nothing more than conjecture, and also falsely 
presumes that inability to obtain labor certification equates to eligibility for the national interest 
Waiver. 
Prior counsel's third assertion amounts to little more than unsupported hyperbole: 
[The petitioner] possesses skills and talents that are unique and not able to be 
articulated on a labor certification application. 
It is quite difficult to be able to set forth in writing all of [the petitioner's] unique 
skills and talents, as there are so many. She has blazed a trail in her field and has no 
equivalent. Her research accomplishments and achievements in this field have made 
her name synonymous with advancements in this area. She is currently involved with 
state-of-the-art research projects aimed at improving the state of knowledge in the 
field of Rheumatology. 
(Emphasis in original.) The only demonstrably factual sentence in the above passage is the last one, 
which simply identifies the petitioner as a researcher in rheumatology. Prior counsel's other claims 
do not take on evidentiary weight merely on the basis of their grandiose scale. Rather, they serve 
only to raise questions of overall credibility. 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 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. 
The petitioner provided a new statement intended "to throw light upon [her] accomplishments that 
make [her] stand out as compared to my peers in the field of medicine." The petitioner described her 
research project using photodynamic therapy as a treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis, and 
asserted: "I am one of the very few clinical scientists who are familiar with this technique and 
can efficiently use it in clinical settings" (emphasis in original). The petitioner does not claim to 
have invented the technique or to be the first to have used it on cutaneous leishmaniasis. 
Simple exposure to advanced technology constitutes, essentially, occupational training which can be 
articulated on an application for a labor certification. Special or unusual knowledge or training, 
while perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. employer, does not inherently meet the national 
interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an 
issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
Page 8 
The petitioner also described her research and clinical work with systemic lupus erythematous. This 
work is certainly not without value, but intrinsic merit does not suffice, by itself, to establish 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. The petitioner asserted that her work is crucial because 
"there is a shortage of rheumatologists," an assertion that, if true, would work in the petitioner's 
favor during the labor certification process. Given that the labor certification process was designed 
to address the issue of worker shortages, a shortage of qualified workers is an argument for obtaining 
rather than waiving a labor certification. See id. at 215, 218. As already explained, there are 
specific statutory and regulatory provisions by which a physician can obtain a shortage-based 
waiver, and the petitioner has made no evident attempt to meet any of those requirements. 
The petitioner submitted updated citation information, indicating that her total number of citations 
had increased by two, from nine to eleven. The petitioner did not show that this minor increase was 
of great consequence to the overall impact of her work. The AAO notes that two of the petitioner's 
three cited articles date from her studies at Aga Khan University, and neither of those articles have 
any clear connection to internal medicine or rheumatology. Rather, the two articles in question both 
reported survey results - one regarding "perceptions about the cause of schizophrenia," and the other 
concerning "self-medication amongst university students in Karachi." Neither the petitioner nor 
prior counsel explained how either of these articles can have any rational connection to the 
petitioner's claimed status as virtually a household name in the field of rheumatology. 
The petitioner's remaining article, regarding topical photodynamic therapy in treatment of cutaneous 
leishmaniasis, is the only article that showed new citations between the filing date and the 
petitioner's response to the request for evidence. This result does not fit well with prior counsel's 
assertion that the petitioner is an increasingly acclaimed figure in her specialty. 
The petitioner submitted three additional witness letters all from UC faculty members who directly 
participated in the petitioner's training. associate professor of pediatric 
rheumatology, stated that the petitioner "stands out in a very exceptional manner among all the other 
... medical residents [she has] worked with." _ claims that the petitioner's "prior 
publications have been extensively cited by other renowned scholars and researchers from all over 
the world," a claim that the record does not strongly corroborate. 
who has "worked with [the petitioner] directly in the outpatient clinic at the 
Hoxworth Center of University Hospital in Cincinnati," called the petitioner a "very talented and 
personable physician who is a valuable asset to our healthcare system" as well as "a budding 
researcher," a term that ill fits prior counsel's exaggerated claims. 
described the petitioner'S one-month rotation in that program and called her "[a] superb clinician 
balanced with a growing experience in the much-needed area of research." _ predicted that 
the petitioner "will [have] a distinguished medical career." 
Page 9 
The director denied the petition on June 13, 2011. In the decision, the director acknowledged the 
intrinsic merit of the petitioner's field and the national scope of medical research, but found that the 
petitioner failed to demonstrate significant impact beyond the institutions where she has worked and 
studied. The director noted the minimal citation of the petitioner's published work. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts: 
Research involving novel ideas and innovative techniques in specialized fields have 
fewer citations immediately, compared to the epidemiological clinical studies. Part of 
the reason for fewer citations is that only a select group of specialists initially know 
about the research being done, and only [a] few top research facilities in the world 
like Harvard University and Cincinnati Children's hospital ... conduct such highly 
specialized research. 
The petitioner did not submit any documented statistics to support her claim that her work receives 
deceptively few citations, while at the same time being disproportionately influential. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sajfici, 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)). 
The petitioner notes: "I have been accepted at Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) as a Fellow in 
Rheumatology .... My acceptance at an institute of such high caliber while competing against many 
US nationals demonstrate [ s] my prominence in my field." As the petitioner acknowledges on 
appeal, fellowship is a training position rather than a high-ranking faculty appointment. The 
reputation of the medical school neither conveys prominence on the petitioner nor reflects any 
existing prominence she already had. The petitioner fails to demonstrate that her ongoing training is 
grounds for a national interest waiver. 
The petitioner also states: 
[C]urrently 1 am working as an internal medicine resident at [the] University of 
Cincinnati and part of my training is to work as a primary care physician at the 
Hoxworth center. Hoxworth clinic of University Hospital serves the indigent 
population of Cincinnati, Ohio. The number of patient[s] that I care for exceeds 180. 
These are the patients who do not find care at any other place .... The United States 
is in a devastating shortage of primary care physicians. 
The implication is that the petitioner serves the national interest by providing care to the patients at 
the Hoxworth Clinic. The petitioner, however, has also indicated that she is about to relocate from 
Ohio to Texas to study at BCM, which will end her work at the Hoxworth Clinic. The national 
interest waiver is prospective in nature, and therefore the petitioner's short-term work at the 
Hoxworth Clinic does not create a permanent entitlement to the waiver. 
Page 10 
Furthermore, the appeal marks the petitioner's first mention of the Hoxworth Clinic. An applicant or 
petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the 
application or petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). 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). For the same reason, the petitioner's newly­
announced plans to train at BCM cannot show that she already qualified for the waiver before she 
was eligible to pursue a fellowship there. 
The petitioner pursues two competing lines of logic on appeal, asserting on the one hand that she 
would alleviate a serious shortage of practicing physicians, but contending on the other hand that the 
labor certification process would likely compel her to practice medicine full-time rather than permit 
her to conduct research. 
Five new letters accompany the appeal. As with previous letters, all of the letters on appeal are from 
individuals involved with the petitioner's ongoing medical training. Two letters are from prior 
witnesses. that "work done at Cincinnati children's hospital is in national interest 
with most impact [sic]." The intrinsic merit of such work is not in question, but it does not follow 
that anyone privileged to engage in that research must necessarily qualify for the national interest 
waiver. _praises the petitioner's "world class research" and asserts without elaboration 
that "a change in visa status will facilitate [the petitioner] in a more efficient and conducive 
manner." 
emphasizes the "pressing shortage of primary care physicians in the US" and asserted 
do everything we can to retain" such physicians. _ does not acknowledge 
the existence of specialized waiver procedures for just such physicians, much less explain why the 
petitioner does not follow those procedures and thereby circumvent all of the NYSDOT requirements. 
supervised the petitioner'S ~ects 
involving photodynamic therapy (PDT) ... in the summer of 2005 and 2006." _ is a 
professor of dermatology, which is not the specialty through which the petitioner claims she will 
serve the national interest. Like many other witnesses,_ praises the petitioner's skill as a 
researcher but offers no information about how the petitioner's past research work has influenced her 
field. 
The remaining two witnesses are both on the BCM faculty. r at 
BCM, states that the petitioner "stood out among some ver~idates" and "will surely be 
... outstanding" upon completion of the training program. _claims that the petitioner's 
"work has already created great impact on the research involving Lupus and will be even more cited 
in the years to come." The record does not indicate that the petitioner had published any cited 
research on lupus at the time of this statement. 
'oner's "work is quite excellent and portends in 
asserts that the petitioner "intends to conduct 
Page 11 
transformative research involving some of the most intransigent, debilitating and complex of all 
medical afflictions - those involving . in which the immune system attacks one or 
more organs for no apparent reason." like to engage the 
petitioner in a two-year research program funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), but "a 
policy of the NIH is not to allow funding for visa holders, rendering [the petitioner] ineligible for 
research support." _ does not persuasively explain why the petitioner should receive 
permanent immigration benefits in order to participate in a temporary program. Furthermore, the 
national interest waiver does not expedite the petition or adjustment process. Also, as previously 
noted, events after the petition's filing date cannot retroactively cause the petitioner to be eligible as 
of the petition's filing date. The petitioner's anticipated future work at_cannot show that she 
already qualified for the waiver before_ accepted her into its fellowship program. 
The Board of Immigration 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 received consideration 
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 evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as 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, 502 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 Matter of Sojfici, 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)). 
In this instance, many of the witness letters offer only very vague claims regarding the petitioner's 
claimed eligibility for the waiver. Some letters rely on conjecture, such as assertions regarding what 
the petitioner may accomplish at_well after the filing date. Others present claims of fact that 
the record either fails to support or contradicts outright. The assertion that the petitioner is widely 
known throughout the field does not explain why all of the witnesses have worked closely with the 
petitioner at a handful of institutions. 
The objective evidence of record portrays the petitioner as a promising trainee who has chosen an 
important area of specialization, but does not corroborate key claims about the extent of the 
petitioner's prior impact and influence on her field. The petitioner has repeatedly relied on 
assertions of dire shortage in her field, but there are specific procedures that a physician must follow 
Page 12 
in order to receive a shortage-based national interest waiver. These procedures are grounded in 
statute. The national interest waiver waives the standard job offer/labor certification requirement; it 
does not waive the statutory procedures set forth at section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act or the 
regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.12. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
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.