dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Microbiology

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
identifying data deleted to U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
OfficeofAdministrativeAppealsMS 2090
Vent Clear DWarranted wa hington,DC20529-2090
mvasiono U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
PUBLIC COPY services
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICECENTER Date: NOV 1 7 2010
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
DegreeoranAlienof ExceptionalAbility PursuanttoSection203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ l 153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideroramotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion.
Thefeefor a FormI-290Biscurrently$585,butwill increaseto $630onNovember23,2010. Anyappealor
motionfiled on or afterNovember23,2010mustbefiled with the$630fee. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(1)(i) requiresthat any motion must be filed within 30 daysof the decision that the motion seeksto
reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief, AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director, TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrant visa
petition.ThematterisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.TheAAO will
dismisstheappeal.
The petitionerseeksclassificationpursuantto section203(b)(2)of the ImmigrationandNationalityAct
(the Act), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asa memberof the professionsholding an advancedd ee. At the
time shefiled the FormI-140petition,thepetitionerwas s
U.S. Citizenshipand
ImmigrationServices SCIS)recordsshowthatthepetitionerhassincemovedtMand then
backto sohercurrentemployment(if any)is not clear. Thepetitionerassertsthatan
exemptionfromtherequirementof ajob offer,andthusof alaborcertification,isin thenationalinterest
of theUnitedStates.Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerqualifiesfor classificationasa memberof
theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree,butthatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatanexemption
from therequirementof ajob offer would bein thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.
Onappeal,thepetitionersubmitslettersfrom herselfandotherwitnesses,copiesof articles,andother
documentationof herrecentresearchwork.
We notethat,at thetimeof filing, attorn representedthepetitioner.On
appeal,however,thepetitionercalls her"former attorney,"andstatesthatshe
hasnolegalrepresentation.
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart:
(2) Aliens Who Are Membersof the ProfessionsHoldingAdvancedDegreesor Aliens of
ExceptionalAbility. --
(A) In General.-- Visasshallbe madeavailable. . . 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 the United States,andwhoseservicesin the sciences,arts,professions,or business
aresoughtby anemployerin theUnitedStates.
(B) Waiver of JobOffer -
(i) . . . the Attorney Generalmay,whenthe Attorney Generaldeemsit to be in
thenationalinterest,waivetherequirementsof subparagraph(A) thatanalien's
servicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or businessbesoughtby anemployer
in theUnitedStates.
Page3
The directordid not disputethat the petitionerqualifiesasa memberof the professionsholdingan
advanceddegree.Thesoleissuein contentionis whetherthepetitionerhasestablishedthatawaiverof
thejob offerrequirement,andthusalaborcertification,is in thenationalinterest.
Neither the statutenor the pertinentregulationsdefine the term "national interest." Additionally,
Congressdid not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committeeon the
Judiciarymerelynotedin its reportto theSenatethatthecommitteehad"focusedon nationalinterestby
increasingthe numberandproportionof visasfor immigrantswho wouldbenefitthe UnitedStates
economicallyandotherwise.. . ." S.Rep.No.55, 101stCong.,1stSess.,11(1989).
Supplementaryinformation to regulationsimplementingthe Immigration Act of 1990(IMMACT),
publishedat56 Fed.Reg.60897,60900(November29, 1991),states:
TheService[now USCIS|believesit appropriateto leavethe applicationof this test
asflexible aspossible,althoughclearly analien seekingto meetthe [national interest]
standardmust make a showing significantly above that necessaryto prove the
"prospectivenationalbenefit" [requiredof aliensseekingto qualifyas"exceptional.")
The burdenwill restwith the alien to establishthat exemptionfrom, or waiver of, the
job offer will be in thenationalinterest. Eachcaseis to bejudged on its own merits.
Matter of New YorkStateDept.of Transportation,22 I&N Dec.215 (Commr.1998),hassetforth
severalfactorswhich mustbeconsideredwhenevaluatingarequestfor anationalinterestwaiver. First,
it mustbeshownthatthealienseeksemploymentin anareaof substantialintrinsicmerit. Next,it must
beshownthattheproposedbenefitwill benationalin scope.Finally,thepetitionerseekingthewaiver
mustestablishthatthealienwill servethenationalinterestto asubstantiallygreaterdegreethanwould
anavailableU.S.workerhavingthesameminimumqualifications.
It mustbenotedthat,while thenationalinterestwaiverhingeson prospectivenationalbenefit,it clearly
mustbe establishedthatthe alien'spastrecordjustifiesprojectionsof futurebenefitto the national
interest.Thepetitioner'ssubjectiveassurancethatthealienwill, in thefuture,servethenationalinterest
cannotsufficeto establishprospectivenationalbenefit.Theinclusionof theterm"prospective"isused
hereto requirefuture contributionsby the alien, ratherthanto facilitate the entry of an alien with no
demonstrableprior achievements,and whosebenefit to the national interestwould thus be entirely
speculative.
We alsonotethat theregulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines"exceptionalability" as "a degree
of expertisesignificantlyabovethatordinarilyencountered"in agivenareaof endeavor.By statute,
aliensof exceptionalability are generallysubjectto thejob offer/laborcertificationrequirement;
they arenot exemptby virtue of their exceptionalability. Therefore,whethera given alien seeks
classificationas an alien of exceptionalability, or as a memberof the professionsholding an
advanceddegree,that aliencannotqualify for a waiverjust by demonstratinga degreeof expertise
significantly abovethat ordinarily encounteredin his or herfield of expertise.
Page4
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii) requires that a petitioner seeking to apply for the
exemptionmust submitForm ETA-750B,Statementof Qualificationsof Alien (or corresponding
sectionsof ETA Form9089),in duplicate.Therecorddoesnot containthis requireddocument,and
thereforethe petitionerhas not properly appliedfor the nationalinterestwaiver. The director,
however,did not raisethis issue. We will, therefore,review the matteron the meritsratherthan
leaveit at a finding thatthe petitionerdid not properly apply for thewaiver.
Thepetitioner'sinitialfiling of theFormI-140petition,onJune2,2008,includednostatementfromthe
petitioneror from counselto explainpreciselywhatthepetitionerintendsto do in theUnitedStatesin
the future. Thepetitionerdid, however,submitseveralwitnesslettersdescribin the titioner's ast
accomplishments.Dr. associateprofessorat th
stated:
I servedas a scientific advisor to [the petitioner) for her doctoral dissertationand
researchin the Departmentof Microbiologyat the
from 2000-2006.I canattestthat [thepetitioner]wasanoutstanding
doctoralcandidateandthatshewasamongtheverybeststudentsI haveobservedin my
16 yearsat . Her excellenceanddedicationto geneticresearchof the human
pathogenStreptococcuspneumoniaehas significantly improvedour understandingof
therole of theStreptococcusPspAproteinin immunity.. . .
Althoughtherearevaccinesavailablefor S.pneumoniaetheyarenot protectivefor all
strainsof theorganisms.[Thepetitioner's]workhasshownthatPspA,asurfaceprotein
of S. pneumoniaethat enhancesthe virulence of streptococcalinfections can be
exploitedas an alternativevaccine. [The petitioner]demonstratedthat antibodies
againstPspAconferresistanceto S.pneumoniaeinfection.. . .
After receivingherPh.D.,[thepetitioner]wasrecruitedby atoplaboratorywheresheis
cuiTentlyinvestigatinghumanimmuneresponsesto intestinalpathogens.. . . Thereis an
acuteneedfor trainedresearchersin this areaand[thepetitioner's]experiencewill beof
particularvaluetotheUnitedStates.
Anothel facultymember,Professor , stated:
[The etitionerlconductedresearchin my laboratoryat the i
for a periodof five years,from 2001to 2006. Duringthattimeperiod,
[the petitioner] successfullyperformedtwo importantprojectsthat werefundedby the
Her researchachievementsduringthoseprojects
weresufficientto convincemethatherabilitiesaresubstantiallygreaterthanthoseof
themajorityof herpeers,andthatsheis ableto contributeto futureresearchin thefield
of microbiologyatanexceptionallevel.
Page5
. . . [The petitioner's] studieson therole of PspA vs. thegeneticbackgroundin overall
pneumococcalvirulenceprovidedthe very first insightin the reportedliteratureasto
whysomepneumococcalstrainsweremorevirulentandmoredifficult to protectagainst
by anti-PspAantibodies. This was [a] particularlyimportantbreakthroughin the
developmentof aneffectivePspA-basedpneumococcalvaccine.
. . . [Thepetitioner]identifieda noveltranscriptionfactorthatfacilitatesthesurvivalof
the pneumococcusin varioushost environments.Her seminalwork on this highly
conservedproteinfamily led to a newunderstandingof the interactionsbetweenhost
andbacteriaduring infection. It cannotbe stressedenoughthat the implicationsof her
studiesextendedwell beyondthe pneumococcusand have formed the basis for
understandingbacterialregulationduringinfection.
Professor of describedthepetitioner'swork at
thatinstitution:
A majoraspectof [thepetitioner's]work involvestheinvestigationof themechanisms
by which immunecells initiate anti-Cryptosporidiumimmunity,a seriouspathogen
which is responsiblefor episodesof acutediarrheain healthyindividuals,andchronic
diarrheaandwastingwhichcanbefatalin immunodeficientpatientssuchas[thosewith]
HIV/AIDS. . . . Dendriticcells (DCs) are the crucialcells in initiating an immune
response.[Thepetitioner]is amemberof ateamwhois investigatingtheroleof DCsin
hostresponseto Cryptosporidiuminfection.. . . Activation of Toll-like receptors(TLRs)
expressedonDCsisoneof thekeyfirst stepsthattriggerthefunctionalmaturationDCs.
Our researchgrouphasshownthat Cryptosporidiumis recognizedby DCs andthat it is
mediatedby TLRs. ElucidatingtheinteractionbetweentheTLRsandCryptosporidium
will extendourunderstandingin DCsresponsein protozoainfections.
. . [The petitioner]is alsoinvolvedin a projectstudyingthe hostimmuneresponse
againstClostridiumdifficile toxins. C.difficile is themostcommoncauseof antibiotic-
associatedcolitis. . . . During the effort to generateprotectiveanti-toxinantibodies,our
researchteamobservedthat oneparticularantibodycanincreasethe cytotoxic effect of
C.difficiletoxins.. . . [Thepetitioner]conductedfollow-upexperimentsanddiscovered
thatthepresenceof thisantibodydid not interferewith theintracellularmodeof action
by toxins. Sheis currently engagedin conductingfurther experimentsto identify cell
surfacereceptorsinvolvedin thisphenomenon.
Two witnessesarenotfrom institutionswherethe etitionerhasworked. Professor of
stated:
I know, from discussionswith that[thepetitioner]hasbeena majorassetto
hisresearchprogram. . . andthatshehasdevelopedcriticalinsightsintohostpathogen
interactionsin gastrointestinalinfections.. . .
Page6
My own work clearlyhasbenefitedfrom thesestudiesandI look forwardto future
progressin [thepetitioner's]studies.Sheisclearlyatopresearchscientistin thisfield.
Prof. Weiss'scurriculumvitae showsthat he hascollaboratedwith Prof. Tzipori on a numberof
articles.
ProfessorJ. GlennSongerof theUniversityof Arizonastated:
I havenevercollaboratedwith [thepetitioner],but I amfamiliarwith herreputationasa
distii uishedinfectiousdiseaseresearcherat
[The petitioner's] unique approachto understandingthe immune responsein C.
di#icile-associatedcolitishasdrawnextensiveattention.Theresultsof herresearchare
eagerlyanticipated,asit opensup potentialtargetsfor developmentof immune-based
therapeuticstrategies.
. . In addition,[the petitioner]is alsoconductingimportantresearchon the host
immuneresponseto other intestinalpathogens,includingCryptosporld/umspp and
Microsporidiumspp.. . . [The petitioner]hasuseda microarraytechniqueto screen
thousandsof hostgenes,andsuccessfullyidentifiedthosethatareresponsivetoparasitic
infections. Shehasrecentlypresentedher work at a conferenceto both interestand
acclaim.
The petitionersubmittedlittle objectiveevidenceto showthe "extensiveattention"and"acclaim"to
which the lettersreferred. The beneficiarydocumentedher participationin variousprofessional
meetings,and submittedcopiesof threearticlesthat she co-wrote. The petitionershowedtwo
independentcitations of one of thosearticles,and one suchcitation for another. Both cited articles
predatehermostrecentwork atTufts.
Thedirectordeniedthepetitionon May 28,2009. Thedirectoracknowledgedtheintrinsicmeritand
nationalscopeof thebeneficiary'soccupation,butfoundthatthepetitionerhadnotshownthatherwork
merits the specialbenefit of the national interestwaiver. On appeal,the petitioner arguesthat the
directordid not give sufficientweightto thewitnesslettersshehadsubmitted.
The opinionsof expertsin the field arenot without weight andwe haveconsideredthemabove.
USCISmay, in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony.
SeeMatter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988), However, USCIS is
ultimately responsiblefor making the final determinationregardingan alien's ehgibility for the
benefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthepetitionis not presumptive
evidenceof eligibility; USCISmay,aswe havedoneabove,evaluatethecontentof thoselettersas
to whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at 795. USCISmayevengive lessweightto
Page7
an opinion that is not corroborated,in accordwith other information or is in any way questionable.
Id. at 795; seealso Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998)(citing Matter of
TreasureCraft of California, 14I&N Dec. 190(Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). Theclaim of a witnesses,
independentor otherwise,thatthepetitioner'swork hasearned"attention"or "acclaim"cannotcarry
thesameweightasverifiable,independentdocumentationshowingthatto bethecase.
The letters submittedwith the petition attestedto the importanceof the petitioner's work but
provided little specific information as to how her ongoing efforts have influenced the field. The
petitioner, on appeal, claims that the director failed to consider the statementsof "four (4)
independentreviewers,"but threeof thepetitioner'sfive initial witnesseshaveworkeddirectly with
her anda fourth hascollaboratedwith oneof her mentors.
Two new lettersaccompanythe appeal. in his secondletter on the petitioner's behalf,
providesadditionaltechnicaldetailsregaringt epetitioner'sworkandstates:
[The petitioner's]studieshavebroughta breakthroughin our basicunderstandingof
humoralimmuneresponseto C. difficile toxins, demonstratingthat sometoxin-specific
antibodies may have detrimental, rather than protective, effects on hosts through *
enhancedtoxinactivity. [Thepetitioner's]work. . . is of enormousinterestto scientists
who will, in the future,designeffectiveC. difficile vaccines.[Thepetitioner]further
developeda rapid, ultrasensitiveassayfor detectionof C. difficile toxins . . . [that] will
no doubt greatly improve the sensitivityand efficiency of the currentdiagnostic
methods.
indulgesin speculationhere,referringto thefuturedevelopmentof a vaccinethatdoesnot
yetexist,andstatingthatthereis "no doubt"thatthepetitioner'sworkwill "improvethesensitivityand
efficiencyof thecurrentdiagnosticmethods."Thepetitionerhasnot shownthatsuchimprovements
havetakenplace;only thatthis particularwitnessbelievessuchimprovementsto be inevitableat some
futuretime.
, an associateprofessorat the
like describesthepetitioners recentwork in
technicaldetailandassertsthatherwork"will eventuallyleadtothedevelopmentof effectiveimmune-
basedtherapiesand novel preventivemethods,"without illustrating what concretestepshavealready
occurredin thatdirection.
Thepetitionersubrnitscopiesof fourarticlespublishedafterthepetition'sJune2008filing date,aswell
asa provisionalpatentapplicationandmaterialsregardingprofessionalconferencesafterthatdate.The
mereexistenceof thesematerialsdoesnot imply eligibility for the waiver,becausedisseminationof
one'sworkthroughjournalsor conferencesappearto beroutinewaysof presentingaresearcher'swork
to one'speers.A patentapplicationdemonstratesaneffortto protectintellectualproperty,ratherthana
self-evidentdemonstrationof theimportanceof thematerialtobepatented.
Page8
Furthermore,thepetitioner,on appeal,mustdemonstratethatthedirector'sdecisionwasincorrectbased
on theevidenceavailableto thedirectoratthetime of thatdecision. It cannotsufficefor thepetitioner
to showthatthepetitionwouldhavebeenmorepersuasiveif thepetitionerhadfiled it later,with better
evidence.An applicantor petitionermustestablishthatheor sheis eligiblefor therequestedbenefitat
the time of filing the applicationor petition. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).Therefore,subsequentevents
cannotcausea previouslyineligible alien to becomeeligible after the filing date. SeeMatter of
Katigbak,14 I&N Dec.45, 49 (Regl.Commr.1971). Therefore,evenif the newmaterialsshowed
eligibility for the waiver,which theydo not, we could not fault thedirectorfor failing to anticipatethe
futuresubmissionof evidencethatdidnotyetexistatthetimeof filing.
Theonlyobjectiveevidencethepetitionerhassubmittedto showthescientificcommunity'sreactionto
her work consistsof threepublishedcitations,with no articlecitedmorethantwice. This level of
citation doesnot show petitioner'swork has significantlyinfluencedthe work of other
researchers.Oneo s collaborators, assertedthathis "own workclearlyhas
benefitedfrom" thepetitione rts,buthedid not elaborate.Otherpraiseof thepetitioner'swork
reliesonspeculationaboutwhatmayeventuallyresultfromthatwork.
Thedirector,in denyingthepetition,didnotfind thatthepetitioner'sresearchiswithoutvalue,or thatit
isof nointeresttothewiderscientificcommunity.Thepetitionerhasnotonlysoughtclassificationasa
memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree;shehasalsorequestedanadditionalbenefitin
the form of an exemptionfrom the job offer requirementthat normallyappliesto aliensin that
classification(andto aliensof exceptionalability). Theburdenis on thepetitionerto showthatshe
meritsthat specialbenefit,evenat this very early stagein her careerbeforeshehascompletedher
postdoctoraltraining. The directorfound that the petitionerhad not persuasivelyshownthat she
qualifiesfor the additionalbenefitsheseeks.We agreewith thatfinding. This is not a permanent
findingthatthepetitionercanneverqualifyfor immigrationbenefits.It is,rather,a findingthatshehas
notsubmittedsufficientevidencetosupportthisparticularpetition.
Wenotethatthepetitioner'sspouse, appliedfor adjustmentof statuson FormI-485,with
receiptnumberSRC09 18752274. The Director,TexasServiceCenter,approvedthat applicationon
February4, 2010(severalmonthsafterthefiling of thepresenta eal. Ourfindingsin this decision
arewithoutprejudiceto anyseparateproceedingsarisingfrom adjustmentto permanent
residentstatus.
As is clear from a plain readingof the statute,it was not the intent of Congressthat every person
qualifiedto engagein a professionin theUnitedStatesshouldbeexemptfrom therequirementof ajob
offer basedon nationalinterest. Likewise,it doesnot appearto havebeenthe intentof Congressto
grantnationalinterestwaiverson thebasisof theoverallimportanceof a givenprofession,ratherthan
on the meritsof the individualalien. On thebasisof theevidencesubmitted,the petitionerhasnot
establishedthata waiverof therequirementof anapprovedlaborcertificationwill bein thenational
interestof theUnitedStates.
Page9
The burdenof proof in theseproceedingsrestssolely with the petitioner. Section291 of the Act,
8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
This decisionis without prejudiceto the filing of a new petition by a United Statesemployer
accompaniedby a labor certificationissuedby the Departmentof Labor, appropriatesupporting
evidenceandfee.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.