dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Molecular Biology

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdmlnistratlve Appeals MS 2090 
identifyLyg 3- 6e!etcd to 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
pr2vezl ~:r;;;~~~tc~ ,. ,\ i U.S. Citizenship 
in*rasior; of 3": ::ILL --I and Immigration 
q-j~~Hc Services 
YL 
FILE: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 07 260 55863 
 SEP 3 0 2009 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. fj 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas 
Service Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal 
will be dismissed. 
This petition, filed on August 28, 2007, seeks to classify the petitioner pursuant to 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 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 had not established that an exemption fiom the requirement of a job offer 
would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director failed to properly evaluate the evidence submitted by the 
petitioner. 
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 
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 j ob offer. 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) 
that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
The petitioner holds a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology issued by the Indian Agricultural 
Research Institute in 2004. The director found 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 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 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
Page 3 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 10 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service 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 Dep 't of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 21 6 (Comm. 1998) [hereinafter 
"NYSDOT'], has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. Id. at 217. Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national 
in scope. Id. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same 
minimum qualifications. Id. at 2 1 7- 1 8. 
We note that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly must 
be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. 
Id. 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 be entirely 
speculative. Id. 
At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a postdoctoral Visiting Fellow in the 
Endocrinology and Reproduction Research Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development (NICHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH). The petitioner worked under the 
supervision of 
 Chief and Head of the Section on ~okcular Endocrinology. In the 
summer of 2008, the petitioner joined the laboratory of, Assistant Professor 
of Pediatrics, Division of Newborn Medicine, Children's Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, biomedical 
research (endocrinology, reproductive biology, cancer biology, and neonatal hematology), and that 
the proposed benefits of his work would be national in scope. 
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. Id. at 218. 
Page 4 
Moreover, it cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique background." 
Id. at 221. 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 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 element of 
proof. A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence 
on the field as a whole. Id. at 219, n. 6. 
Along with documentation pertaining to his field of research, the petitioner submitted several letters 
of support. 
In his work on Oncology and Experimental therapeutics at University of South Florida, [the 
petitioner] investigated the inhibition of histone deacetylases (HDACs) as a new strategy in 
human cancer therapy. The cellular models that he utilized in these studies include human 
breast cancer and leukemia cells. An additional major focus of research was to determine the 
molecular mechanisms by which histone modifications, e.g., acetylation, de-methylation and 
phosphorylation, molecular determinants in human breast cancer and leukemia cells. The 
effects of histone deacetylase inhibitors on Her-2, AKT and c-Raf in breast cancer cells, BCR 
ABL and FLT-3 in leukemia, as well as the effect on the levels of c-FLIP and TRAIL death 
receptors in leukemia cells, were investigated. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors are 
emerging as an exciting new class of potential anticancer agents for the treatment of solid 
and hematological malignancies. These drugs used have shown impressive anticancer 
activity invivo with remarkably little toxicity in preclinical studies and are currently in phase 
I clinical trial. 
[The petitioner's] expertise has been significantly advanced since his participation in the NIH 
program, where his experience was comprehensively broadened through conducting studies 
in the interdisciplinary areas involving endocrinology, molecular biology, and cellular 
biology. At the National Institutes of Health, [the petitioner] is investigating on a novel 
testicular gene, the Gonadotropin-regulated testicular RNA helicase (GRTHIDdx25). He 
first demonstrated that GRTH is a major regulator of spermatogenesis in the prevention of 
testicular germ cell apoptosis. Subsequently, [the petitioner] demonstrated that GRTH is an 
integral component of mRNP particles, a phosphoprotein, which is essential for testicular 
germ cells development in our gene targeted mouse model. He studied the subcellular 
localization and phosphor-modification of GRTH and demonstrated two GRTH protein 
species that are differentially distributed in cellular compartment of mouse testis. [The 
petitioner's] elucidation of the regulation of pro- and anti-apoptotic protein expression by 
GRTH in gonadal cells has shed new insights into the understanding of the mechanism 
involved in the male reproduction. 
Page 5 
While the petitioner's superiors at the University of South Florida assigned him to investigate the 
inhibition of histone deacetylases (LIDACs) as a new strategy in human cancer therapy, there is no 
evidence showing that he conceived this treatment strategy or that the intellectual property rights for 
the drugs involved in the phase I clinical trial were primarily attributable to his original work. 
Moreover, there is no evidence demonstrating that the clinical trials were successful or that the 
petitioner's work has had a significant degree of influence on his field. 
- Senior Staff Scientist, Section on Molecular Endocrinology, NICHD, NIH, 
states: 
In NIH, [the petitioner] is investigating on a testicular novel gene Gonadotropin-regulated 
testicular RNA helicase (GRTH/Ddx25). He first demonstrated that GRTH is a master 
regulator of spermatogenesis in the prevention of testicular germ cell apoptosis. 
Subsequently, [the petitioner] demonstrated that GRTH is an integral component of mRNP 
particles, a phosphoprotein, which is essential for testicular germ cells development in our 
gene targeted mouse model. He studied on the subcellular localization and phosphor- 
modification of GRTH and demonstrated two GRTH protein species that are differentially 
distributed in cellular compartment of mouse testis. . . . He also demonstrated participation 
of CAMP-PKA in the post-translational modification of the 61 kDa GRTH species. [The 
petitioner] also helped in developing micro array analysis for germ cell specific RNA 
expression profiles. [The petitioner's] elucidation of the regulation of pro- and anti-apoptotic 
protein expression by GRTH in gonadal cells sheds new insights on the understanding of the 
mechanism involved in the male reproduction. 
Throughout these projects, [the petitioner] has developed himself to a knowledgeable and 
capable reproduction biologist and molecular endocrinologist. [The petitioner] is a co-author 
of several papers in this subject and some other papers are in the process for publication. 
[The petitioner] . . . was also selected to present his study to the International Annual meeting 
of the Endocrine Society (2007) in Toronto, Canada this June. 
In the same manner as , Assistant Professor and Interim Chief, 
Division of Pediatric Hematolorrv/Oncolorrv. Universitv of Florida. discusses the ~etitioner's 
conference presentations and staies: 
[The petitioner] worked at the prestigious National Institutes of Health where he has made 
seminal contributions to studies on characterization of the function and regulation of 
Gonadotropin-Regulated Testicular Helicase (GRTH), an enzyme that is critical for the 
progression of sperm maturation. . . . For this project [the petitioner] was exposed to cutting 
edge gene expression screening technologies as they became available and as a result 
acquired an advanced level of expertise in the genomics field. He developed innovative 
strategies for understanding the process of sperm maturation. He has been invited to present 
evidence of his work at a large number of international scientific meetings and conferences 
including the Keystone Meeting in Colorado, America Society for Biochemistry and 
Molecular Biology in San Diego, and Endocrine Society in Toronto, Canada and San 
Francisco, CA. . . . His work . . . was accepted for publication in top ranking journals like 
Journal of Biological Chemistry and Human Molecular Reproduction. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his co-authorship of articles appearing in publications such as 
Journal of Biological Chemistry, Plant Cell Biotechnology and Molecular Biology, and Molecular 
Human Reproduction. The petitioner also submitted evidence showing that he coauthored papers for 
presentation at scientific conferences such as the American Society of Hematology's 45th Annual 
Meeting and the Endocrine Society's 89th Annual Meeting. We note that publication in journals and 
conference proceedings is inherent to scientific research.' For this reason, we will evaluate a citation 
history or other evidence of the impact of the petitioner's articles when determining their 
significance to the field. For example, numerous independent citations for an article authored by the 
petitioner would provide solid evidence that other researchers have been influenced by his work and 
are familiar with it. On the other hand, few or no citations of an article authored by the petitioner 
may indicate that his work has gone largely unnoticed by his field. 
The petitioner initially submitted search results from Google Scholar demonstrating a single cite to 
his published articles. We note that this single citation was a self-~itation.~ The petitioner also 
submitted search results from IS1 Web of Science reflecting five cites to his work, two of which 
were self-citations. In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted 
additional search results from Google Scholar and copies of five articles that cite to his work. This 
documentation reflects that the petitioner's body of work has been cited approximately ten times. 
While these citations demonstrate a small degree of interest in his published and presented work, the 
limited number of submitted citations is not sufficient to demonstrate that his work has significantly 
influenced his field as a whole or otherwise sets him apart from other researchers in the biomedical 
field. 
fi Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Adjunct Research Dean of 
the Federal University of Santa Maria, Brazil, states: 
' For "Biological Scientists," the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2008-2009 (accessed at 
http:l/~ww.bls.~ovloco/), states that a "solid record of published research is essential in obtaining a permanent position 
involving basic research." See http:/ldata.bls.gov/cgi-bi1~/print.~~ocolocosO47.hn, accessed on September 16, 2009, copy 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. The handbook also provides information about the nature of employment as a 
postsecondary teacher (professor) and the requirements for such a position. See http:lldata.bls.govlcgi- 
bin/print.p~oco/ocos066.ht1n, accessed on September 16, 2009, copy incorporated into the record of proceeding. The 
handbook expressly states that faculty members are pressured to perform research and publish their work and that the 
professor's research record is a consideration for tenure. Moreover, the doctoral programs training students for faculty 
positions require a dissertation, or written report on original research. Id. This information reinforces USCIS's position that 
authorship of scholarly articles does not set the petitioner apart fiom others in his field; we must consider the research 
community's reaction to those articles. 
2 
 Self-citation is a normal, expected practice among researchers in the scientific community. Self-citation cannot, 
however, demonstrate the response of independent researchers. 
[The petitioner's] inventive research and development work in the field of the Cancer therapy 
for the treatment of those suffering from Leukemia and Breast Cancer has led to path 
breaking therapy predictions for these diseases. For the first time he used the combination of 
the drugs (LBH589 and 17-AAG) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and chronic 
myelogenous leukemia (CML) cells. 
[The petitioner] has developed himself to a knowledgeable and capable reproduction 
biologist and molecular endocrinologist . . . . [The petitioner's] elucidation of the pro- and 
anti- anti-apoptotic protein expression by GRTH in gonadal cells has a great impact on the 
understanding of the mechanism involved in the male reproduction. He also has a broad 
range of experiences and knowledge, ranging from clinical reproductive endocrinology to 
basic molecular and cell biology and development, which, together with his many other 
strong qualities, will make him an outstanding scholar and scientist. 
With regard to the petitioner's scientific knowledge and research experience, objective qualifications 
and experience necessary for the performance of a research position can be articulated in an 
application for alien labor certification. Pursuant to NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 215, an alien cannot 
demonstrate eligibility for the national interest waiver simply by establishing a certain level of 
training, education, or experience that could be articulated on an application for a labor certification. 
Executive Director for the Office of Sponsored Research Administration and 
Regents Distinguished Professor of Biology, Savannah State University, Georgia, states: 
During his studies [the petitioner] found LBH 589, a novel Cinnamic Hydroxamic Acid 
Analogue was effective in Leukemia and Breast Cancer. Due to his initial efforts, now this 
drug is in Phase I clinical studies in patients with refractory hematologic malignancies. 
At the NIH, [the petitioner] investigated the aspects related to the function of Gonadotropin 
Regulated Testicular RNA Helicase (GRTH) which include studies on genes that are 
concerned to apoptotic events and fertility at the meiosis in GRTH null mouse. Since 
GRTH/Ddx25 was crucial for fertility in male mice, he initiated studies to determine the 
relevance of this gene to human spermatogenesis and demonstrated GRTH as a master 
regulator of spermatogenesis which prevents testicular germ cell apoptosis. His study also 
provided evidence for a GRTH/Ddx25 gene mutation at G727A that might be involved in 
male infertility of some patients with idiopathic non-obstructive azoospermia. This mutation 
leads to defective phosphorylation of GRTH protein. These findings led to new openings in 
field of male sterility in humans. 
[The petitioner] worked on understanding apoptosis in Gonadotropin Regulated Testicular 
RNA helicase (Ddx25/GRTH) Knock out mice model. He studied mouse in vivo 
experimental model and used an advanced gene expression profiling technology to study the 
regulation of sperm maturation. [The petitioner] has performed excellent work in GRTH 
project and is a coauthor of a JBC [Journal of Biological Chemistry] paper in this subject. 
His investigation revealed GRTHIDdx25 is a master regulator of spermatogenesis which 
prevents testicular germ cell apoptosis. In our collaboration with [the petitioner] in genetic 
studies in normal and infertile Japanese patients, sequencing results showed gene mutation at 
G727A might be involved in male infertility and defective GRTH phosphorylation. Apart 
from being successful molecular biologist, [the petitioner] developed micro array analysis for 
germ cell specific RNA expression profiles proving himself expert in advanced gene 
expression profiling technology. 
I first met [the petitioner] during our days at NICHD, NIH . . . where he and I worked 
together on characterization of the Gonadotropin Regulated Testicular RNA Helicase 
knockout mice model. He investigated the aspects related to the function of Gonadotropin 
Regulated Testicular RNA Helicase (GRTH) which include studies on genes that are 
concerned to apoptotic events and fertility at the meiosis in GRTH null mouse. . . . Our study 
has provided evidence for a GRTH/Ddx25 gene mutation at G727A that might be involved in 
male infertility of some patients with idiopathic non-obstructive azoospermia. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication, presentation, or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool 
of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to 
the general pool of knowledge inherently serves the national interest to an extent that justifies a 
waiver of the job offer requirement. 
: Assistant Professor of Molecular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College 
of Medicine, states: 
[The petitioner] has made recognizable advances in the area of Oncology and Experimental 
therapeutics. [The petitioner] has investigated inhibition of histone deacetylases (HDACs) as 
a new strategy in human cancer therapy. His research includes exploring novel approaches 
to target mechanisms of resistance against anti-cancer agents. The cellular models utilized in 
these studies include human breast cancer and leukemia cells. He investigated the 
mechanism of cytotoxicity of the combinations of HDAC inhibitors and HSP 90 inhibitors, 
or HDAC inhibitors and novel BCR-ABL kinase inhibitors, against chronic myelogenous 
leukemia cells refractory to treatment due to mutations or amplifications of BCR-ABL. A 
similar combination of HDAC inhibitor and FLT-3 kinase inhibitor was also evaluated 
against acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells. These studies are very important to determine 
how chaperone biology and chromatin modifications can be therapeutically exploited against 
human breast cancer and leukemia. 
In the area of Reproductive Biology, [the petitioner's] efforts have contributed to the 
characterization of a mutation in infertile patients, in the gene encoding Gonadotropin 
Regulated Testicular Helicase (GRTH/Ddx25), which might be involved in male sterility. 
With regard to the witnesses of record, many of them discuss the promise of the petitioner's research 
and what may one day result from his work, rather than how his past research already significantly 
influenced his field. A petitioner cannot file a petition under this classification based on the 
expectation of future eligibility. Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Commr. 1971) 
Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and Associate 
Biologist, Brigham & Women's Hospital, states: 
In his current work, [the petitioner] is studying the cellular and molecular mechanisms of 
platelet homeostasis in neonates. He is focused on defining the cellular and molecular 
mechanisms leading to different rates of platelet production by adult or neonatal 
megakaryocytes (platelet producing cells residing in bone marrow). Findings from these 
studies will eventually lead to more appropriate therapies for thrombocytopenic neonates, 
and would also be applicable to the treatment of thrombocytopenia following cord blood 
transplants, since the transplanted cells are neonatal in origin. Such a task will surely bring 
substantial benefits to the nation as a whole and will give detailed insights into Stem Cell 
Biology. The success of this project is so important to the welfare of our country that the 
best and the brightest researchers are required. 
As discussed, 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 21 8. The observations from various witnesses about the importance of the petitioner's 
projects establish the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's work, but their comments are not adequate to 
show that his individual accomplishments are of such an unusual significance that he qualifies for a 
waiver of the job offer requirement. By law, advanced degree professionals and aliens of exceptional 
ability are generally required to have a job offer and a labor certification. A statute should be 
construed under the assumption that Congress intended it to have purpose and meaningful effect. 
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237, 249 (1985); Sutton v. United 
States, 819 F.2d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 1987). Congress plainly intends the national interest waiver to 
be the exception rather than the rule. 
Associate Professor in the Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, and 
Chair in Pediatric Pulmonology at Children's Hospital Boston, states: 
Presently, [the petitioner] has taken the challenging task to study neonatal thrombocytopenia 
at prestigious Harvard Children's Hospital Boston which is the largest pediatric research 
center and one of the top healthcare providers worldwide. Neonatal Thrombocytopenia is a 
common disease among newborn babies admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (affecting 
one third of all patients). . . . Endowed with a high level of expertise in experimental as well 
as animal models, [the petitioner] is in an excellent position to distinguish himself in the 
increasingly multidisciplinary biomedical research landscape. 
It cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses useful skills or a unique background. Regardless of the 
alien's particular experience or skills, even assuming they are unique, the benefit the alien's skills or 
background will provide to the United States must also considerably outweigh the inherent national 
interest in protecting U.S. workers through the labor certification process. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 
221. 
a hematologist in the Transhsion Center and in the Hematology-Oncology 
Unit at Morales-Meseguer's Hospital in Murcia, Spain, states: "[The petitioner] is focused on 
unveiling the most important reasons underlying predisposition of neonates to develop severe 
hematologic disorders." 
The preceding statements from, and discuss the petitioner's work on 
research projects that post-date the filing of this petition. As discussed previously, a petitioner must 
establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider the petitioner's research projects that 
commenced subsequent to the petition's filing date in this proceeding. 
In addition to the letters of support, the petitioner submitted evidence of his awards and professional 
memberships. We note, however, that recognition for achievement in one's field and professional 
memberships relate to the regulatory criteria for classification as an alien of exceptional ability, a 
classification that normally requires an approved labor certification. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii). We 
cannot conclude that meeting one, two, or even the requisite three criteria for classification as an 
alien of exceptional ability warrants a waiver of the labor certification requirement in the national 
interest. By statute, "exceptional ability" is not, by itself sufficient cause for a national interest 
waiver. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. Thus, the beneJit which the alien presents to her field of 
endeavor must greatly exceed the "achievements and significant contributions" contemplated for that 
classification. Id; see also id. at 222. 
Nevertheless, the nature of the petitioner's awards does not establish that he meets the national 
interest waiver threshold. The petitioner submitted a certificate stating that he received a "2001 
Student Travel Award" from the Society for In Vitro Biology (SIVB) at the "Congress on In Vitro 
Biology June 16 - 20,2001 ." The petitioner also submitted an article from the July-September 2001 
issue of the SIVB newsletter, In Vitro Report, reflecting that he was among several "student award" 
recipients at the 2001 Congress on In Vitro Biology. The petitioner's selection for an award limited 
by its terms to students offers no meaningful comparison between him and those in the field who 
have long since completed their educational studies. Further, there is no evidence from the SIVB 
showing the criteria for determining a recipient's eligibility for this award. Moreover, we cannot 
conclude that that the petitioner's receipt of funding to offset travel expenses rises above the 
Page 11 
"achievements and significant contributions" contemplated for aliens of exceptional ability or 
demonstrates achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted a July 7, 1997 letter from the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research 
(CSIR), Human Resource Development Group, Examination Unit stating: "This is to inform you 
that you have qualified the above Examination for consideration for Award of Junior Research 
Fellowship in LIFE SCIENCES under the CSIR Fellowship Schemes. The Award of Fellowship 
will be subject to your satisfying the eligibility conditions . . . ." We cannot conclude that 
successfully passing a standardized test and qualifying for a "Junior Research Fellowship" establish 
that the petitioner will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an 
available worker with the same minimum qualifications. We note that eligibility for the preceding 
fellowship was limited to students seeking to pursue graduate studies. 
international Association for Plant Tissue Culture & Biotechnology (IAPTC&B), stating: 
I would like to congratulate you on . . . being selected as one of the recipients of an 
IAPTC&B Fellowship to attend the loth IAPTC&B Congress. 
Please confirm that you accept the fellowship and will personally present your poster at the 
Congress. 
Your fellowship will cover the registration fee (which includes the opening reception, three 
boxed lunches, the banquet, and a copy of the proceedings) and a shared hotel room . . . . 
The petitioner also submitted a listing reflecting that he was among 84 "Fellowship Recipients" at 
the loth IAPTC&B Congress. There is no evidence from the IAPTC&B showing the criteria for 
determining a recipient's eligibility for this fellowship. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner's receipt of funding to attend this conference shows that he served the national interest to 
an extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
The petitioner submitted a Certificate of Achievement from the International Crops Research 
Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Training and Fellowships Program for his 
"successful completion of Apprenticeship in Cellular and Molecular Biology Division [CMBD] . . . 
from 20 May to 01 July 1996." The petitioner also submitted a page from the May 3 1, 1996 issue 
of the ICRISAT Happenings newsletter identifying him as an "apprentice" and stating that he was 
"doing his summer project work with CMBD, studying molecular biology techniques." The 
petitioner's successful completion of a six-week apprenticeship program is not indicative of 
influence on his field and offers no meaningful comparison between him and those in his field who 
have long since completed their molecular biology training. 
Page 12 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a certificate from the 
American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) issued to him "in recognition 
of. . . participation in the ASBMB Graduate/Postdoctoral Travel Award Program in San Diego, CA, 
April 4-5, 2008." The petitioner received this certificate subsequent to the petition's filing date. A 
petitioner, however, must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, the AAO will not consider this evidence in 
this proceeding. Nevertheless, this certificate is simply an acknowledgment of the petitioner's 
participation in the program. 
The letter from mentions the petitioner's receipt of a "2007 Scientific Travel Award 
from Sigma-Aldrich." The record includes a May 14,2007 e-mail stating: "On behalf of the Sigma- 
Aldrich Team, we would like to thank you for stopping by our booth at Experimental Biology and 
taking our Gene Hunt Challenge. We are pleased to inform you that you are the lucky winner of our 
$3,000 Scientific Travel Award. . . . Thank you for playing!" There is no evidence from the Gene 
Hunt Challenge organizer showing the criteria for determining a recipient's eligibility for this travel 
award. Further, the phrases "you are the lucky winner" and "Thank you for playing!" suggest that 
winning this award was based on a game of chance rather than significant achievement in the field of 
research. 
The director denied the petition stating that the petitioner failed to establish that a waiver of the 
requirement of an approved labor certification would be in the national interest of the United States. 
The director found that the petitioner had not established that his past accomplishments were of such 
unique significance that he qualifies for a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director improperly reviewed the letters of support, the 
petitioner's publication record, his conference presentations, and the submitted citations to his body 
of work (less than a dozen in aggregate). Much of this documentation has already been addressed in 
our preceding discussion of the evidence. 
With further regard to the letters of support, USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinion 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 
(Commr. 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 of support from 
individuals selected by the petitioner is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate 
the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. In 
evaluating the recommendation letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of skill and 
experience are less persuasive than letters that provide specific examples of how the petitioner has 
influenced the field. Regarding the letters from those who have interacted with the petitioner, while 
such letters are important in providing details about his past activities, they cannot by themselves 
establish his influence over the field as a whole. In this case, the content of the recommendation 
letters does not establish that the petitioner's work has already had a significant national impact or 
otherwise influenced his field as a whole. 
Regarding the petitioner's conference presentations, we note that participation in scientific 
conferences and symposia of the petitioner's kind is routine and expected in the scientific 
community. Many professional fields regularly hold conferences and symposiums to present new 
work, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. These conferences are 
promoted and sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and 
government agencies. Participation in such events, however, does not significantly distinguish the 
petitioner fiom others in his field 
In regard to the citations of the petitioner's work, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that his 
body of published and presented research has been independently cited less than a dozen times. The 
small number of submitted citations is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner's findings 
were particularly influential throughout his field. While petitioner has contributed to research 
projects undertaken by the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer and Research Center at the University of South 
Florida, NM, and Children's Hospital Boston (Harvard Medical School), the petitioner has not 
established that his past record of achievement is at a level that would justify a waiver of the job 
offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa classification sought by the petitioner. 
We note that the petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national acclaim, but the 
national interest waiver contemplates that his influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 217 n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the field of 
endeavor." Id. at 218. See also id. at 219 n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of demonstrable 
achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole.") 
As is clear fiom a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every alien of 
exceptional ability should be exempt fiom 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 occupation, 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. 5 136 1. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer accompanied 
by an alien employment certification certified by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting 
evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.