dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Neurology

U.S. Department of Humehnd Security 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarrantec 
invasion of personal privac) 
mcIC COPY 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: - Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JAN 0 Z0lD 
LIN 08 173 51372 
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@)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153@)(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. 5 103.5 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a chcal researcher. The petitioner asserts that 
an exemption fiom the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an ahen employment certification, is in the 
national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner had not established that an 
exemption fiom the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold 
the director's decision. 
Section 203(b) ofthe 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 job 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 Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery fiom Gujarat University in India and a Master of 
Public Health fiom Tulane University. The petitioner's occupation fills within the pertinent regulatory 
definition of a profession. The petitioner thus qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The remaining issue is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus an alien employment certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress did 
not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "in the national interest." The Committee on the Judiciary 
merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had '"fbcused 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, 101 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 (Nov. 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of thls test as flexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must 
make a showing sigdicantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benefit" [required of ahens seekmg to qualiQ as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with 
the alien to establish that exemption fiom, 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, 2 17- 1 8 (Comrn'r. 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 ahen 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 217-18. 
It must be noted 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 wlll, 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. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, neurology. The 
director then addressed whether the proposed benefits of the petitioner's work would be national in 
scope. The majority of the petitioner's duties are as a practicing physician and administrative duties 
as a Chief Neurology Resident. The director concluded that the benefit of these duties would not be 
national in scope. The director did acknowledge that the petitioner also performs research and that 
this research has the potential for benefits that are national in scope. Notably, however, the petitioner 
had been offered a one-year Stroke Fellowship (residency, according the employment agreement in 
the record). None of the job duties for this position include research. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner has acted as a consultant to scientific institutions and 
will likely continue his work as a consultant rather than work for any one traditional employer. 
Specifically, counsel speculates that the petitioner "may" obtain independent research grants fiom 
sources other than his employer and "may" act as a consultant to a number of medical research 
institutions. As evidence that the petitioner is already beginning to act in this manner, counsel notes 
that the petitioner has been invited to write editorials for highly ranked journals. Counsel is not 
persuasive. Research is not part of the petitioner's one-year Stroke Fellowship employment 
agreement. Similarly, the petitioner has no documented experience working as a hired consultant for 
multiple institutions. The fact that, after the date of filing, he has been invited to write editorials for 
journals does not suggest that he could secure employment as an independent contractor for multiple 
institutions rather than working primarily as a practicing physician. Simply conceiving a manner in 
which the petitioner could convert his skills to serve the national interest at the national level does not 
convert an occupation whose benefits are primarily local to an occupation whose benefits are typically 
national in scope. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3 provides: 
[Tlhe analysis we follow in "national interest" cases under section 203(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act differs fiom that for standard "exceptional ability" cases under section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. In the latter type of case, the local labor market is considered 
through the labor certification process and the activity performed by the alien need not 
have a national effect. For instance, pro bono legal services as a whole serve the 
national interest, but the impact of an individual attorney working pro bono would be 
so attenuated at the national level as to be negligible. Similarly, while education is in 
the national interest, the impact of a single schoolteacher in one elementary school 
would not be in the national interest for purposes of waiving the job offer requirement 
of section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act. As another example, while nutrition has obvious 
intrinsic value, the work of one cook in one restaurant could not be considered 
sufficiently in the national interest for purposes of this provision of the Act. 
Id. We concur with the director that while health care is in the national interest, the impact of a single 
physician is too attenuated at the national level.' In light of the above, we will only consider the 
petitioner's past record and fiture potential as a researcher rather than as a physician. 
1 
 Congress is presumed to be aware of existing administrative and judicial interpretations of statute when it 
reenacts a statute. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978). In this instance, Congress' awareness of 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation is a matter not of presumption, but of demonstrable fact. In 
1999, Congress amended section 203(b)(2) of the Act in direct response to the 1998 precedent decision by 
including a separate waiver for physicians operating in an underserved area. The petitioner in this matter does 
not seek a waiver as a physician in an underserved area. When reenacting the statute in 1999, Congress could 
have taken any number of actions to limit, modify, or completely reverse the precedent decision. Instead, 
Congress let the decision stand, apart from a limited exception for certain physicians willing to work in an 
underserved area, as described in section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. Because Congress has made no further 
statutory changes in the decade since Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, we can presume that 
Congress has no further objection to the precedent decision, including the requirement that the proposed 
benefits must be national in scope. 
It remains, then, to determine whether the petitioner's research 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. 
Moreover, it cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses usehl skills, or a "unique background." 
Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. 
The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an issue under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa classification 
he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. A petitioner 
must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
Id. at 2 19, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, we note that original innovation, such as 
demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself Whether the specific innovation serves the national 
interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of various achievements and recognition. Specifically, the petitioner 
submitted evidence of his membership in the Eta Chapter of the Delta Omega Society, Sigma XI, the New 
York Academy of Sciences and the American College of Physicians (ACP). The record reveals that the 
Delta Omega Society and Sigma Xi are honor societies. 
 According to materials submitted by the 
petitioner, membership in the Delta Omega Society requires evidence of scholarship in students, teaching 
or research in faculty. According to other materials submitted by the petitioner, membership in Sigma Xi 
requires a "noteworthy achievement" as evidenced by publications, patents, written reports or a thesis or 
dissertation. In addition, the petitioner received a letter fiom ACP advising that hIS election to fellowship 
had been "almost halized." The letter includes the following disclaimer: 'You are receiving this message 
as a benefit of your ACP membership." The materials submitted fiom the ACP website indicate that 
fellowship can be fiom advancement &om regular membership. Even if we were to conclude that these 
memberships are indicative of a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered, 
evidence of such memberships fdl under one criterion for establishing eligiiility as an alien of exceptional 
ability, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). ThIS classification, however, normally requires an approved &en 
employment certification. We cannot conclude that meeting one criterion or even the requisite three 
criteria for that classification warrants a waiver of the &en employment certification requirement. Id. at 
21 8,222. 
Similarly, the petitioner received (1) an honorable mention for the 2007 resident's award issued by the 
Angioma Alliance, (2) an invitation to the American Neurological Association's Presidents' Award 
Symposium in 2008, (3) a letter fiom the Association of Indian Neurologists in America (AINA) 
confirming his selection for Best Research Presented by an Indian Neurologist at the American Academy of 
Neurology Meeting, (4) a certificate of completed educational activity towards an American Medical 
Page 6 
Association Physician's Recognition Award, (5) Resident of the Year recognition fiom St. Barnabas 
Hospital, (6) a First Place fhish at the 2008 Michigan Mind Matters and (7) 2007 and 2008 Clinical 
Excellence Awards fiom Michigan State University. The Angiorna AUmce award was limited to 
residents, who are completing their training. The petitioner did not establish the si@cance of the 
invitation to an award symposium. Education credit towards a recognition award appears based on course 
completion rather than demonstrated impact in the field. The AINA recognition appears to be limited to 
neurologists fiom one foreign country working in the United States. The Michigan Mind Matters appears 
to be a purely local event. Finally, recognition from the petitioner's own employer, Michigan State 
University, cannot establish the petitioner's influence beyond that institution. Sigrhcantly, the recognition 
was for clinical excellence rather than the completion of influential research. Regardless, as with 
memberships, recognition fiom peers and organizations is one criterion for aliens of exceptional ability, 8 
C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). As stated above, that classification normally requires an approved alien 
employment certification, which we will not waive simply because an alien meets two criteria or even the 
requisite three criteria. NYSDOT, 22 1&N Dec. at 21 8,222. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence that he served on a Michigan State University panel to evaluate 
potential new hires and served as a peer reviewer, including as one of hundreds of peer reviewers for 
Stroke. Specifically, the list of reviewers includes 396 names just within the first three letters of the 
alphabet, the portion of the list provided by the petitioner. We are not persuaded that serving on an 
internal panel evaluating potential new hires for his employer demonstrates the petitioner's influence 
beyond his employer. Moreover, the petitioner has not demonstrated that serving as one of hundreds, 
possibly thousands, of reviewers of this journal sets him apart fiom other clinical researchers in his field. 
The record also reveals that the petitioner has founded a new journal, Neurohospitalist. We do not 
question that this journal has the potential to influence the field. The record, however, contains no 
evidence that this journal has yet to pubhsh a single issue, let along establish its reputation. Thus, th 
evidence suggests that the petition was at best fled prematurely, before the petitioner's journal could 
publish any issues and estabhsh a reputation. 
The record also includes an undated invitation to submit an editorial to US Neurology for a 2009 issue and 
a March 3, 2009 letter fiom the editor of Nature Clinical Practice Neurology, , advising 
that the petitioner had been invited to submit an editorial for an upcoming issue of that journal. - 
asserts that only experts are invited to contniute editorials. She does not, however, explain how selections 
are made or provide the number of invitations extended annually. Both invitations postdate the filing of the 
appeal and cannot be considered evidence of the petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
$6 103.20>)(1), (1 2); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). Regardless, while 
the invitations suggest that the petitioner may be gaining some recognition in the field, for the reasons 
discussed above and below, the evidence does not establish his influence on the field as a whole. 
The record also contains evidence that the petitioner appeared in Who's Who in America. The petitioner 
did not submit evldence to establish the significance of h inclusion as one of hundreds of other individuals 
in this directory. Without evidence that this publication is more significant than a for-profit vanity press 
that pennits self-nomination, we cannot conclude that this evidence demonstrates the petitioner's influence 
in the field. 
The petitioner has published several case studies and presented his work at conferences. 
 While the 
petitioner's references attest to the significance of the journals and co&ences, we will not presume the 
influence of a given article or presentation fiom the journal or conference. Rather, it is the petitioner's 
burden to establish the significance of an individual article or presentation. In response to the director's 
request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that two of his articles had been cited 
once each and requests for reprints of a third article. This evidence does not demonstrate that the 
petitioner's articles have been influential. The petitioner also submitted evidence that a press release of his 
survey on the use of tissue plasrninogen activator (tPA) for stroke victims was widely reproduced on health 
websites. The stories clearly result fiom between one and three press releases as the language in all of 
these reports is identical to one of three formats. 
First, while the petitioner indicates that he began the research one month prior to the date of £iling, it 
remains that it was not presented until after the petition was filed. As stated above, the petitioner must 
establish h eligi'bility as of the date of ihg. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec, at 49. In this matter, that means that he must demonstrate his track record of success 
with some degree of influence on the field as a whole as of that date. All of the case law on this issue 
focuses on the policy of preventing petitioners &om securing a priority date in the hope that they will 
subsequently be able to demonstrate eligibility. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 
(Reg'l. Colm'r. 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; see also Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 175-76 (Cornm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 1 14 (BIA 1981) for the 
proposition that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition.") Consistent with these decisions, a petitioner cannot secure a priority date in the hope that 
his as of yet unpublished research will subsequently prove influential. Ultimately, in order to be 
meritorious in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval as of 
the date it was filed. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). As this research had 
not been disseminated as of the date of filing, it cannot demonstrate the petitioner's influence in the 
field as of that date. 
In addition,, a professor at Wayne State University in Michigan, explains that 
this research resulted fiom uoolinn the results of 18 studies ~ublished between 1995 and 2008 to 
u 
determine that women are 30 percent less likely to receive tPA. 
 does not explain how 
pooling the results of previous studies demonstrates the petitioner's neurological expertise rather than 
a basic use of statistics. Any future filing would need to elaborate on how the petitioner's expertise 
as a neurologist contributed to these findings. 
The remaining evidence consists of reference letters. The initial letters were all fiom the petitioner's 
colleagues at Michigan State University. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, 
the petitioner submitted more independent letters. We will consider those letters below. U. S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (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 fiom experts 
supporting the petition 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. 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 Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Cornm'r. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comrn'r. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of vague 
contributions to the field are less persuasive than letters that provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner has influenced the field. In addition, letters fiom independent references who were 
previously aware of the petitioner through his reputation and who have applied his work are far more 
persuasive than letters fiom independent references who were not previously aware of the petitioner 
and are merely responding to a solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and 
provide an opinion based solely on this review. 
University, asserts that the petitioner obtained nearly perfect scores during his medical education. 
Academic performance, however, as measured by such criteria as grade point average, cannot alone 
satis@ the national interest threshold or assure substantial prospective national benefit. In all cases 
- - 
the petitioner must demonstrate specific prior achievements that establish the alien's ability to benefit 
the national interest. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. then discusses the 
petitioner's recognition as a resident, discussed above. As stated above, however, this recognition 
- - 
may relate to one of the criteria for aliens of exceptional ability but does not necessarily demonstrate 
the petitioner's eligibility for a waiver of the alien employment certification process. 
Finally, 
 characterizes the petitioner as an "emerging leader," and an "outstanding clinical 
scientist" with "considerable expertise at the highest level" relating to cerebral vascular disease. 
While notes that the petitioner has presented hs work, however, he does not provide 
examples of how the petitioner's clinical research has influenced the field. Similarly, - 
of the Cerebrovascular Disease Division at Michigan State University, simply lists the 
evidence addressed above without explaining how the field has been influenced by the petitioner's 
research. 
at Michigan State University, also praises the petitioner's 
academic grades and examination scores. 
 As stated above. however. academic ~erformance is 
insufficient Id. 
 Regarding the petitioner's specific research accomplishknts, provides: 
One of [the petitioner's] topics is the elevated levels of C-reactive protein and hs 
research suggests that the high levels of C-reactive protein may be predictive of intimal 
hyperplasia and help physicians pick appropriate candidates for the stinting. He has 
also done excellent research in the lab on rodents, which help to correlate the impact 
of ischemic stroke on cardiac function. This model of fbnction may allow better study 
of cardiac abnormalities in patients who have stroke. He has submitted a paper and is 
the first author on lower pretreatment cerebral blood volume increases the hemorrhage 
risks after interarterial revascularization in acute stroke. This work has the potential to 
change the approach of hydrating patients prior to endovascular revascularization. 
(Emphasis added.) The above language is highly speculative and does not suggest that independent 
physicians are already using the petitioner's work to chose the appropriate stinting candidate, that 
independent researchers are using his rodent models to study cardiac abnormalities in stroke victims or that 
independent hospitals have altered their policy on hydrating patients prior to revascularization based on his 
work. ~imilarl~; a professo; at ~ichi~aniiate uni&-sity, characterizes the above studies 
as "cutting edge" but f%ls to explain how the field has already been influenced by these studies. 
Vascular Neurology Fellowship Program at the Cleveland Clinic, asserts that the petitioner '%as 
exceptional training in both internal medicine and neurology allowing hlm to become one of the handfuls of 
physicians who will have these skill sets, as he becomes a vascular neurologist and Neurocritical care 
specialist." It cannot suffice, however, to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique 
background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest 
threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under 
the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
Regarding the petitioner's specific research project, 
 speculates that the petitioner's "line of 
research will help vascular neurologists and endovascular specialist to better identify patients most 
likely to benefit from aggressive treatment paradigms in the setting of an acute ischemic stroke." -1 
does not suggest that any hospital has issued new guidelines based on this research or 
otherwise explain how it has already influenced the field. Regarding the petitioner's work on C- 
reactive proteins, concludes that the data from this work "can be used for randomized 
controlled studies involving stent placement in intracranial vasculature" but does not identify any 
independent institution performing such studies based on the petitioner's data. 
he worked on two projects with the petitioner, one of which was not presented until after the date of 
filing. The first project was a review article of mini-stroke care. While praises the 
petitioner's ability to complete part of thls project independently and notes that it was presented, he 
does not explain how this study has influenced the treatment of mini-stroke patients at the national 
level. 
Page 10 
His background training in clinical stroke care, internal medicine expertise as well as 
public health (MPH from Tulane University) puts him in a unique position since there 
are very few clinical neurologists that can bridge these three important areas. 
As stated above, however, it cannot suffice, however, to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or 
a "unique background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not Inherently meet the 
national interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U. S. is 
an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 22 1. 
While the petitioner submitted letters &om more independent references in response to the director's 
request for additional evidence, they mostly discuss accomplishments that had yet to prove influential 
as bf the date of filing, the date as bf whidh the petitioner must establish his eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. 
Neurosciences ICU at the Mayo Clinic, Florida, discusses the petitioner's participation in the 
founding of Neurohospitalist. 
 explains that the petiioner negotiated contracts and 
assembled an editorial board consisting of national and international experts in Neurohospitalist 
Medicine from several prestigious institutions. further states, however, that the first 
issue of the journal was not due out until fall 2009. On appeal, the petitioner submits no evidence 
that the journal actually published an issue. As this journal had yet to publish a single issue as of the 
date of filing or even as of the appeal date, the record does not establish the significance of the 
petitioner's participation in the founding of this journal. 
asserts that the petitioner "evaluated and developed a new protocol for using novel 
imaging of the brain known as CT Perfusion in patients receiving invasive stroke treatment." = 
continues that the petitioner "found that patients with certain imaging parameters were 
more likely to have hemorrhage after having catheter based intervention treatment of stroke." While 
notes that this research was presented one month before the petition was filed, he 
does not explain how th research has influenced the field. For example, he does not identify 
hospitals that have adopted the petitioner's protocol. then discusses the petitioner's 
analysis of data on more than 21,000 stroke patients, resulting in the conclusion that men are 30 
percent more likely to receive tPA than women. As discussed above, however, this research was 
completed and presented after the date of filing. Thus, this research cannot establish the petitioner's 
eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Washington, asserts that the petitioner is one of the pioneers of Neurohospitahst medicine, a rapidly 
growing field that is having and will have a significant impact on health care in our nation. Such care, 
according to , is "ideally provided by physicians trained both in Neurology and Internal 
medicine or Neurologists interested in inpatient medicine." - asserts that the petitioner is among 
the three to five percent of neurologists dually trained in both internal medicine and neurology. As stated 
above, however, it cannot suffice, however, to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique 
background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest 
threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under 
the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
The remaining letters are similar to those discussed above. The record shows that the petitioner is 
respected by his colleagues and has made useful contributions in his field of endeavor. It can be 
argued, however, that most clinical research, in order to be accepted for publication or presentation, 
must present some benefit to the general pool of scientific knowledge. It does not follow that every 
researcher who performs original clinical 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. 
As is clear &om 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 ftom 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 &en 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. 
9 1 36 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.