dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Neuroscience

preveat clearly unwarranted 
invesi~ of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of £%omeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
mK1 COPY 
FILE: EAC 06 027 52058 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 2 20D8 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
\J 
Abet? P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 2 
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. tj 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. At the time of filing, the petitioner sought employment as a postdoctoral 
associate. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an 
alien employment certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that 
the petitioner qualifies for the classification sought, but that the petitioner had not established that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and new evidence. For the reasons discussed below, counsel's legal 
assertions are not persuasive and the record does not support his assertions of material factual errors.' 
Thus, we uphold the director's decision. 
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 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 has submitted evidence relating to the regulatory criteria for aliens of exceptional ability 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Specifically, the petitioner has submitted evidence of 
professional memberships and her remuneration. This issue is moot, however, because the record 
' The gender of the petitioner is not a material fact in the context of her eligibility for the benefit sought. In 
" - " 
fact, one of the petitioner's references, 
 this error in the second sentence of the final 
paragraph of his letter. Yet, we will not 
 s letter on this basis. 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 3 
establishes that the petitioner holds a holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of Illinois. The 
petitioner's occupation falls 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 "focused on national interest 
by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
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 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 quali@ 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, 2 17- 18 (Commr. 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 2 17. 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 17-1 8. 
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 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. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, neuroscience, and 
that the proposed benefits of her work, both at the time of filing (improved understanding of how 
estrogen effects the brain) and subsequently (development of preclinical models for evaluation of 
anxiety and depression drugs), would be national in scope. It remains, then, to determine whether 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 4 
the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an available U.S. worker with 
the same minimum qualifications. 
Counsel appears to be asserting that a waiver of the alien employment certification can be justified 
by examining the utility of the certification process itself. For example, in response to the director's 
request for additional evidence, counsel stated that being hired "as a senior scientistlteam leader at a 
salary that with benefits exceeds $100,000 per year should be proof by itself that [the petitioner] is 
extraordinary, and stands head and shoulders above her peers."2 Counsel continues: 
This is not a low salary paid to attract cheap foreign laborers. This [sic] the whole 
purpose of labor certification, protecting the job market for Americans, means 
absolutely nothing in this instance. 
One hopes that at the [Service Center], people are actually mindful of the purpose of 
labor certification. One hopes as well that even an ordinary person can see that a job 
paying $1 00,000 per year is not a job that Americans are shunning because the salary 
is too low. 
The director rejected the implication that the alien employment certification process was designed 
solely for low paying jobs and noted that the petitioner was not employed in this well-paid position 
as of the date of filing. On appeal, counsel asserts that the alien employment certification process is 
to protect American salaries, not to give American workers an advantage over foreign workers. 
Counsel submits materials from the website of the Department of Labor (DOL) which provides that 
DOL "must certify to the USCIS that there are no qualified U.S. workers able, willing, qualified and 
available to accept the job at the prevailing wage for that occupation in the area of intended 
employment and that employment of the alien will not adversely affect the wages and working 
conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers." This language derives from section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) 
of the Act. 
While section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act mentions workers willing to accept the prevailing wage and 
evidences Congress' concern about the potential for an adverse impact on the wages of U.S. workers, 
that section also focuses on the existence of qualified U.S. workers who are able, willing and available. 
In designing the alien employment certification process, Congress stated that those classifications 
requiring alien employment certification "must be entering for the purpose of meeting a shortage of 
employable and willing U.S. workers in specified labor that is not temporary or seasonal in nature." 
H.R. Rep. No. 101 -723, 61 (Sept. 19, 1990). Congress clearly and unambiguously expressed the need 
for employers to document their efforts to locate able, willing and qualified workers. Id. at 62. 
Remuneration alone is never sufficient by itself to meet the regulatory definitions of extraordinary or even 
exceptional pursuant to sections 203(b)(l)(A) and 203(b)(2) of the Act. Rather, remuneration is merely one 
of the regulatory criteria for both classifications, of which an alien must meet at least three. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(h)(3)(ix); 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 5 
Congress further expressed its expectation that employers be able to provide evidence of their 
recruitment efforts, including "interviews of available workers and why they were found not qualified." 
Id. at 63. Thus, there can be no doubt that beyond protecting U.S. wages in any field3 from being 
depressed, Congress also intended the alien employment certification process to demonstrate that the 
alien was filling a job for which there were no qualified, able, willing and available U.S. workers. In 
other words, the employer must demonstrate a shortage of qualified, able, willing and available U.S. 
workers. 
This intent is acknowledged in NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. 
 The AAO stated that the alien 
employment certification process "exists because protecting the jobs and job opportunities of U.S. 
workers having the same objective minimum qualifications as an alien seeking employment is in the 
national interest." To expand on that premise, the alien employment certification process was designed 
by Congress and it must therefore be presumed that Congress intended the process to serve the national 
interest. Nothing in the legislative history of the Act suggests that the national interest waiver of that 
process was intended simply as a means for employers (or self-petitioning aliens) to avoid the 
inconvenience of the labor certification process. Id. at 223. We do not find that this logic is any less 
persuasive simply because the proposed employment pays well. 
Moreover, Congress expressly made the alien employment certification the rule, not the exception, for 
members of the professions and aliens of exceptional ability. Section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 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, 8 19 F.2d. 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 1987). By applying the alien employment certification 
process to section 203(b)(2) of the Act, Congress clearly did not intend the process to be limited to 
only low-paying jobs that are unlikely to require an advanced degree professional or alien of 
exceptional ability. 
Regardless, on appeal, counsel acknowledges that the petitioner was not employed in her current 
position as of the date of filing and attempts a different strategy for attacking the utility of the alien 
employment certification. Counsel states that the alien employment certification process was not 
contemplated for postdoctoral positions where "few, if any qualified Americans apply." Counsel 
claims to know of postdoctoral positions where no qualified Americans applied and asserts that 
employers would hire U.S. applicants before foreign applicants because of the hassle of hiring foreign 
workers. Thus, counsel implies that the very act of hiring a foreign worker demonstrates the lack of a 
qualified U.S. worker, a proposition that would seem to render the entire alien employment certification 
process with its recruitment requirements superfluous in all situations, a position Congress certainly 
does not take. Counsel concludes: "The reality is that Americans are not competing for these jobs any 
more than they are competing for jobs picking peas." 
3 
 Congress expressed an interest in preventing the depression of wages in general, not merely for those 
positions that are already low paying. 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 6 
First, these statements regarding the lack of U.S. workers are unsupported. The unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). Further, the practical result of counsel's assertion is that we would have to waive the 
alien employment certification process if the process would likely result in an approved alien 
employment certification or, in fact, for every case because, according to counsel, the U.S. employer 
has demonstrated the lack of U.S. workers simply by expressing a desire to hire a foreign worker. 
Moreover, if we accepted counsel's logic, we would be usurping the jurisdiction of DOL and making 
determinations we are not qualified to make. As stated in clear and unambiguous terms in NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. at 221, the issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an 
issue under the jurisdiction of DOL. That decision further states that it is the position of Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (CIS) to grant national interest waivers on a case-by-case basis, rather than to 
establish blanket waivers for entire fields of specialization. Id. at 21 7. Thus, even assuming there is a 
shortage of qualified U.S. workers to fill postdoctoral positions, that is not an issue under our 
jurisdiction and it would be inappropriate for us to establish blanket waivers for postdoctoral associates 
based on that assertion. 
In fact, it is not appropriate for CIS to create new blanket waivers for any reason. Significantly, in 
section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, Congress created a blanket waiver for certain physicians. This 
statutory provision proves two important points. First, it demonstrates Congress' ability and 
willingness to create blanket waivers. Thus far, Congress has not done so for postdoctoral 
associates. Second, the existence of this specific blanket waiver argues against the existence of 
implied blanket waivers; otherwise, section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act would arguably be 
superfluous. As stated above, a statute should be construed under the assumption that Congress 
intended it to have purpose and meaningful effect. Mountain States Tel. & Tel., 472 U.S. at 249; 
Sutton, 8 19 F.2d. at 1295. 
The Department of Labor has acknowledged that some occupations warrant a blanket certification. 
Specifically, 20 C.F.R. 5 656.10 provides: 
The Director, United States Employment Service (Director), has determined that there 
are not sufficient United States workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available 
for the occupations listed below on Schedule A and that the wages and working 
conditions of United States workers similarly employed will not be adversely affected 
by the employment of aliens in Schedule A occupations. An alien seeking a labor 
certification for an occupation listed on Schedule A may apply for that labor 
certification pursuant to $ 656.22. 
An occupation's listing on Schedule A modifies, but does not waive, the labor certification process 
for aliens in that occupation. Furthermore, the list of Schedule A occupations at 20 C.F.R. $ 656.22 
does not include postdoctoral associates specifically. 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 7 
For all of the reasons discussed above, whether qualified U.S. workers are able, willing and available 
for postdoctoral positions is not a question that can properly be considered by CIS. 
Finally, counsel asserts on appeal that while the petitioner was not working as a senior scientist at the 
time of filing, she was qualified for that position at the time of filing as is demonstrated by her move to 
that position shortly after the petition was filed. As acknowledged by counsel, the petitioner must 
demonstrate eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971). More significantly, we cannot "consider facts that come 
into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Mutter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 
(Commr. 1998) (citing Matter of Burdouille, 18 I&N Dec. 1 14 (BIA 1981)). Regardless, we note 
that remuneration consistent with a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field is one of the regulatory criteria for aliens of exceptional ability, a 
classification that normally requires an alien employment certification. We cannot conclude that 
meeting (or being qualified to eventually meet) one of those criteria, of which an alien must meet at 
least three to be eligible as an alien of exceptional ability, warrants a waiver of that requirement. See 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218,222. 
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. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. 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 she 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. 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 22 1, n. 7. 
As noted by the director, the petitioner relies on several letters, some of which are from distinguished 
members of the petitioner's field, including a member of the National Academy of Sciences. On 
appeal, counsel asserts that the director "lists the number of professor and researchers from around 
the world who state that they have used or been influenced by [the petitioner's] research" and 
questions how the director could then conclude that the petitioner had not established her impact on 
the field. Counsel mischaracterizes the letters in the record. As will be discussed in greater detail 
below, not one of the petitioner's independent references claims to "have used or been influenced" 
by the petitioner's research. Rather, they provide general praise and discuss how the petitioner's 
results are original and applicable to clinical practice. 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 8 
Prior to discussing the content of the reference letters, we note that CIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Commr. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. CIS 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 SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of industry interest 
and positive response in the field are less persuasive than letters that provide specific examples of 
how the petitioner has influenced the field. We acknowledge that several letters appear to be from 
independent members of the field, although they did not include their curriculum vitae. In evaluating 
such letters, we note that letters from independent references who were previously aware of the 
petitioner through her reputation and who have applied her work are far more persuasive than letters 
from 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. 
The petitioner received her Master of Science in Neurobiology from the Capital University of Medical 
Sciences in China under the direction of. As stated above, the petitioner received her 
Ph.D. from the University of Illinois in 2003. While there, she worked in the laboratory of Dr. 
- 
The petitioner then accepted a postdoctoral associate position in the laboratory of Dr. 
at the Rockefeller University in New York. After the date of filing, the petitioner 
began working as a senior scientist and team leader at AstraZeneca in Delaware. 
asserts that while at the Capital University of Medical Sciences, the petitioner adapted a 
capsule-delivery system that could prevent the immune rejection after intracerebral transplantations to 
ameliorate motor deficit in Parkinson's patients without reducing the efficacy of transplanted cells. Dr. 
asserts that this system significantly improved the outcomes of neural transplantation but 
provides no examples of this system being used at the Capital University of Medical Sciences or being 
adopted by other hospitals. The record does not include letters from a selection of hospitals in China or 
elsewhere that have adopted the petitioner's capsule-delivery system. 
praises the petitioner's graduate research on the estrogen effect on CREB signaling and her 
ability to "handle difficult experimental approaches." Special or unusual knowledge or training, while 
perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. employer, does not inherently meet the national interest 
threshold. NYSDOT 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 1 does not explain how this work has impacted the 
field. further notes that the petitioner won four academic awards. The record contains the 
honors themselves. While favorable evidence consistent with local recognition of the promising nature 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 9 
of the petitioner's work, they cannot establish that the petitioner's work had already influenced the field 
beyond her school. 
n further asserts that the petitioner was "the first to demonstrate an estrogen effect on the 
second messenger calciumlcalmodulin-dependent protein kinase IV" and "reported an estrogen-induced 
decrease in calcineurin in the medial Gygdala, thereby defining a possible mechanism by which 
estrogen can regulate cyclic AMP response element-binding protein (CREB) phosphorylation." Dr. 
then discusses the petitioner's work published two months before the date of filing in 
Neuroendocrinology. This work detailed the effects of estrogen on the brain-derived neurotrophic 
factor (BDNF) protein, mRNA and the CREB signaling 
 and showed that estrogen ''affects the 
same pathway as does antidepressants and in related brain areas." 
u 
opines that this work 
"will have hndamental significance in understanding the role of [sic es rogen plays in precipitating 
emotional changes that women undergo during life cycle events." 
Finally, explains that the petitioner extended her work to the rat model of alcoholism, 
demonstrating "a link between estrogen and the amelioration of alcohol withdrawal-related anxiety and 
the regulation CREB signaling pathway by estrogen." This work was to be presented in November 
2005, the month the petition was filed. 
Clearly, the petitioner's Ph.D. research was original. Any Ph.D. thesis or other research, however, in 
order to be accepted for graduation, publication 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. As stated above, original innovation by itself is insufficient; 
the petitioner must demonstrate the significance of the original work. Id. at 22 1, n.7. Moreover, we 
will not presume the significance of the work from the reputation of the journal in which it appeared 
or the conference where it was 
 the petitioner must demonstrate the impact of the 
individual article or presentation. 
 does not provide examples of how the petitioner's 
work, some of it published or pr 
 before the petition was filed, had already 
influenced the field. Counsel has twice asserted that citations of the petitioner's work were being 
submitted. As correctly noted by the director, however, the petitioner did not, in fact, submit any 
citations. The petitioner does not submit any evidence of citation on appeal and counsel does not 
explain the discrepancy between the assertions in his initial brief and the brief submitted in response 
to the director's request for additional evidence and the evidence actually submitted on those 
occasions. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from 
- 
, Chief of the Cytoskeletal Protein 
Regulation Section of the Laboratory of Neuroc emistry at t e 
 ational Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. 
does not explain how he came to know of the petitioner's work and his letter reproduces entire 
paragraphs nearly verbatim from s letter. We acknowledge that 
 signed the letter, 
affirming the sentiments expressed in the letter. The use of so much nearly verbatim language from Dr. 
letter, however, suggests that the language in 
 letter is not his own. 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 10 
a member of the National Academy of Sciences, asserts that the petitioner's work is 
"absolutely essential" to the progress of his laboratory. While he provides general accolades about her 
past work, his focus is on her "potential," concluding that she is "irreplaceable" and "essential to the 
success of our research program," We note, however, that the petitioner no longer works in his 
laboratory. Thus, her potential to contribute to the future work in his laboratory is no longer relevant4 
Other references discuss the significance of the petitioner's past research. , a research 
associate at Rockefeller University, explains that estrogen is known to have effects on the brain but that 
the mechanism of these effects is not known. The petitioner investigated estrogen action on the CREB 
messenger signaling pathway, discovering an estrogen 
 "could be the mediator of estrogen 
effects on emotional and cognitive functions." While 
 asserts that this work could lead "to 
better treatments and prophylactics for mood-related 
 loss during aging," he does 
not provide examples of any academic or harmaceutical company research team pursuing such 
research based on the petitioner's results. further asserts that the petitioner investigated 
"the interaction between estrogen and other neurotransmission systems, such as GABA and histamine." 
notes that the results of this work was accepted for publication in the Proceedings ofthe 
National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and the record demonstrates that the article was actually 
published the month before the petition was filed. asserts generally that this work 
"literally opens up a new field of study in the estrogen field," but does not explain the results or their 
impact on the field. 
, a professor at Loyola University Chicago, asserts that she does not know the 
petitioner personally, but through the petitioner's gr 
 ostgraduate accomplishments and that 
she has reviewed the petitioner's publications. 
 asserts that the petitioner's findings 
"established positive evidence of how estrogen replacement therapy works its consequences, and 
important information about how to modify these consequences." While concludes that the 
petitioner's work has "given critical direction to drug development and clinical therapeutic strategies," 
does not provide examples of the petitioner's work being applied in either drug development 
programs or clinical guidelines. 
The remaining letters, including many from apparently independent members of the petitioner's field, 
provide similar information. They affirm the importance of the petitioner's area of research, which has 
not been contested, and the potential of her work to have clinical implications. They praise her ability 
to use patch clamp electrophysiology but do not explain why this skill is not amenable to enumeration 
on an application for alien employment certification. 
While the petitioner must establish eligibility as of the date of filing and we will not consider evidence of 
accomplishments after that date, see 8 C.F.R. $$ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49, 
the petitioner's change in future plans is relevant as the proposed benefits of her work is an essential element 
of the national interest waiver adjudication. 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 11 
an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, both assert that "it should certainly be self- 
evidence that the Rockefeller University would only select those research scientists who are at the very 
top of their profession." It is not self-evident to us that any institution only selects those at the "top of 
their profession," which presumably includes the most renowned and experienced members of the 
profession, for postdoctoral positions, which are characterized as "trainee" positions in the article 
counsel submits on appeal. Regardless, we will not infer the petitioner's influence on the field from the 
distinguished nature of her employer. She must demonstrate her individual impact on the field. 
further asserts that the petitioner asserts that the petitioner's research published in PNAS in 
2005 changed previous perceptions by "making arousal a measurable parameter instead of a vague 
definition." While we do not doubt that the petitioner reported original findings in her 2005 PNAS 
article, the record does not support s characterization of this work. Specifically, the August 
15, 2003 article posted on medicalnewstoday.com, submitted with the petition, suggests that - 
had already, in 2003 developed the parameter discussed by Specifically, the 2003 Internet 
article reports that scientists were historically divided into those who consider arousal to be a single 
physiological function and those believe that arousal is a collection of small specific abilities. 
According to the Internet article, in a 2003 article in PNAS, presented "a mathematical 
equation that for the first time unifies these two disparate schools of thought and combines generalized 
arousal with various specific forms of arousal, sich as sex, hunger &d fear." The article fiuther 
indicates that showed "that experiments can be designed to measure arousal in laboratory 
mice." The list of coauthors for this 2003 PNAS article at the end of the Internet article does 
not include the petitioner. 
It remains, none of the references provide examples of how the petitioner's work is being used in the 
field beyond her immediate circle of colleagues or claim to have been personally influenced by the 
petitioner. While Executive Director for Business Development at the Forest 
Research Institute, asserts t at e as developed an expertise in the evaluation of early-stage, basic 
research and that he has run clinical development programs for estrogen, he does not indicate that the 
Forest Research Institute is pursuing or considering pursuing clinical programs based on the petitioner's 
research results. 
In considering the petitioner's publication record, the director stated: 
The record indicates that the petitioner has co-authored four English language articles 
and one Chinese language article that have been published in scholarly journals as of the 
filing date. The petitioner also participated in conferences in the field. 
On appeal, counsel asserts: "In reality, [the] petitioner had 15 publications, including conference 
abstracts and proceeding papers as of the filing date, including an article that appeared in PNAS." 
Counsel subsequently acknowledges that postdoctoral associations are expected to publish their work, 
but asserts that the petitioner has published more than the typical postdoctoral associate and that 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 12 
publication in PNAS is beyond what the typical postdoctoral associate accomplishes. The petitioner 
submitted an article in American Scientist Online reporting that postdoctoral associates average 1.2 
peer-reviewed publications per year. Counsel then totals the petitioner's articles in peer-reviewed 
publications and abstracts to conclude that the petitioner's "rate of publication" was five per year. 
First, the director correctly characterized the petitioner's publications as documented in the record. The 
record does, in fact, document four English-language articles as follows: three in Neuroendocrinology 
and one in PNAS. The record also contains a single Chinese-language article published in the Chinese 
Journal of Neuroanatomy. While the director did not specifically list the number of abstracts, the 
director did acknowledge this evidence separate from the petitioner's articles in peer-reviewed 
publications. We note that the record contains eight abstracts for conference presentations. The record 
does not establish whether the presentations were oral or poster presentations. Finally, the petitioner 
submitted an unpublished manuscript prepared for a book chapter. Thus, the director's characterization 
of the petitioner's documented publication record as of the date of filing is entirely accurate. 
Second, counsel's comparison of the petitioner's peer-reviewed published articles and presentation 
abstracts with the average of peer-reviewed publications only is disingenuous. In fact, the petitioner's 
postdoctoral research had resulted in a single article in a peer-reviewed journal as of the date of filing. 
?%e petitioner's other peer-reviewed articles published in journals as of the date of filing report the 
petitioner's graduate research conducted in collaboration with lthough some were not 
actually published until the petitioner had begun her postdoctoral research. Regardless, at issue is not 
whether the petitioner is a more prolific author than other postdoctoral "trainees" (the term used in the 
article provided by counsel) but whether she has influenced the field as a whole to some degree. 
Finally, we recognize that PNAS is a distinguished journal published by the National Academy of 
Sciences, of which the petitioner's coauthor, If is a member. It is still the petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate that her individual article has proven influential. The record lacks testimonials fiom 
independent researchers who are applying this work in their own research or evidence of any citations. 
The petitioner submitted a single request for a reprint of her article in PNAS. This single request, which 
cannot even establish that the individual requesting the article subsequently found it useful and applied 
the results, cannot establish the petitioner's influence in the field. Thus, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated the impact of her articles. 
knowledge the submission of published material about research on estrogen in general and Dr. 
dB work specifically. None of these materials, however, appear to discuss the results of the 
petitioner's collaboration with 
 Thus, they cannot establish the impact of the petitioner's 
work. 
While the petitioner's research clearly has practical applications, it can be argued that any Ph.D. 
thesis or published article, in order to be accepted or published, must offer new and useful 
information to the pool of knowledge. As stated above, it does not follow that every researcher who 
EAC 06 027 52058 
Page 13 
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. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved 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 1361. 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.