dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Neuroscience

· identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of per<;onal privacy 
l'tffiUCCOPY 
DATE: 
JUL 0 7 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and lrrnnigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.c. § 1153(b )(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The AAO notes that u.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has mistakenly assigned two 
different alien numbers (A-numbers) to the petitioner. The record of for the matter 
is in file but USCIS records show another file with the A-rlumlber 
The petitioner seeks classification 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. At the 
time she filed the petition on her own behalf, the petitioner was a postdoctoral fellow at the_ 
. The· stated that she intended to work in a at the 
or p[o]ssibly 
USCIS records indicate that the petitioner began working 
petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, 
is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not 
established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the 
United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel and several supporting exhibits, many of them 
duplicating earlier submissions. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. --
(A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benetit 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. 
Page 3 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. (Her professional status derives from her scientific research work, rather than her 
earlier qualifications as a nurse.) The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, IOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly 
an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter 0/ New York State Dept. a/Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998), has 
set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest 
waiver. First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. 
Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner 
seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
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. 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. 
The AAO also notes that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By 
statute, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification 
requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given 
alien seeks classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding 
Page 4 
an advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on November 27,2009. Counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] is one of the few research scientists and practitioners of nursing who 
have received extensive training in genetics and neuroscience. Due to her extensive 
scientific training and her background as a nurse and then a nursing instructor, she 
conducts her research at the highest and most effective level. ... 
Her pioneering research combining nursing, genetics, and neuroscience contributes 
directly to our country's health care in terms of saving life, reducing suffering, and 
improving recovery by developing and optimizing medical care methods and treatments 
to patients in variety degree [sic] oftraumatic brain injury or cerebral ischemia. 
Counsel described the petitioner's academic background, employment history, publication record 
and other information in detail. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See 
Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. I, 3 n.2 
(BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Therefore, the evidentiary 
weight lies with the first-hand documentary evidence in the record, rather than with counsel's 
interpretation of that evidence. 
The petitioner submitted the manuscript of a book chapter that she co-wrote, not yet published as of 
the filing date, and indicated that a publisher, ha~ 
the petitioner's doctoral dissertation. The record contains no indication that ___ 
•••• 2 peer-reviewed the dissertation, or has any standards that a manuscript must meet to be 
suitable for publication. Instead, materials from the publisher indicate that the company is willing to 
"publish all scientific work," distributed on a "print-to-order" basis which the does not 
print a work until the placement of an order. Leaving aside that had 
not yet published the petitioner's work as of the petition's filing date, the petitioner did not establish 
the extent to which such publication would effectively disseminate her work. 
An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time 
of filing the application or petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). As of the filing date, the petitioner 
claimed one published article, a 2002 piece entitled ' 
It in 
The article's title and the forum in which it appeared seem to indicate 
ertide wcu"" on the practice of nursing rather than on medical research. 
A second article, '~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII •••••••••••••••••••• 
" more clearly reflects medical research, but the 
petitioner did not show that this article had seen print before the filing date. The petitioner's exhibit 
list described the article as "in press" at the time of filing. Therefore, all of the petitioner'S medical 
Page 5 
research disseminated before the filing date was in the form of conference presentations from 2006 
onward. 
The initial submission showed that the petitioner's research work had produced results for 
publication and presentation, but the petitioner's work product itself is not evidence of its own 
significance or impact within the petitioner's field. The petitioner did not submit objective, 
independent evidence (such as evidence of independent citation) to establish the extent of the 
influence of her research. 
[The petitioner] was awarded 
was presented at the annual conference [of th(! •• 
This award is given to only one individual per year that fits the criteria of a young 
investigator. This is a highly competitive award and exemplifies the recognition of 
[the petitioner's] accomplishments. 
Under the USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), evidence of organizational recognition 
for achievements or contributions is part, but not all, of a successful claim of exceptional ability. 
Exceptional ability, in tum, is not sufficient to qualify for the waiver of the job offer requirement 
typically applying to aliens of exceptional ability. Therefore, evidence that the petitioner has 
received an award of this kind is generally not strong evidence that the petitioner qualifies for a 
benefit that is not automatically available to aliens of exceptional ability. USCIS considers each 
petition on a case-by-case basis, and a particularly significant award might show that the recipient's 
work was especially significant within the field, but the burden is on the petitioner to establish the 
significance of the award. It is not self-evident that an award with a potential recipient pool limited 
to the attendees at a single professional conference (let alone the youngest and/or least experienced 
such attendees) would meet this threshold. 
_ offered similar comments along the same vein as above, stating that the petitioner'S 
conference presentations "exempliflY] [the petitioner's] productivity," and that the petitioner's ability 
to secure research funding "most exemplifies [the petitioner's] accomplishments." The record 
contains no objective evidence to show that the petitioner'S number of conference presentations or 
the specifics of her funding set her apart from other qualified researchers in the field. 
_stated: 
[The petitioner] has two manuscripts in development or submitted for publication and 
one of these manuscripts reports the results of her research related to neuroglobin 
gene polymorphisms and outcomes attained after severe traumatic brain injury. This 
paper will be the first to report on this gene within the context of human brain injury, 
Page 6 
providing evidence of [the petitioner's] unique position among Nurse Scientists in 
particular and International Scientists in general. ... 
[The petitioner] has carved a unique research niche in that she investigates genetic 
variation in candidate genes with respect to outcomes after neurological insult, 
particularly her focus on neuroglobin, which has not been investigated extensively in 
humans .... I believe that her continued involvement in this line of investigation will 
result in a better understanding of the role of neuroglobin following neurological 
insult, potentially resulting in improved outcomes for individuals suffering from these 
injuries. 
(Emphasis in original.) The petitioner's choice of research subject addresses the "intrinsic merit" 
prong of the national interest test, but she cannot inherently qualify for a waiver simply because she 
chose that subject. The assertion that the petitioner "will be the first to report" a particular finding 
would be remarkable only if it were customary for most presentations and articles to repeat findings 
that are already known and disseminated. The originality of a work of research appears to be not a 
mark of distinction, so much as a basic requirement for passing routine peer review. 
, stated: 
[The worked in my laboratory as a doctoral student between __ 
_ During this time I served as a committee member on [the 
petitioner's] dissertation committee and I collaborated with [her] major advisor to aid 
in the development of her thesis research. . . . Her training in nursing outcomes 
research coupled with biomarker analysis, gives her a unique skill set within her 
chosen field . 
. . . Her work to determine the relationship between genes that regulate [neuroglobin] 
and clinical outcomes is unique because it blends specific skills with medical and 
nursing research. 
that the petitioner's 
receipt of "a at the. 
" illustrate the petitioner's standing in her field. 
stated: 
[The petitioner] conducted the first study of neuroglobin (a potential neuroprotective 
agent) in patients with a traumatic brain injury and discovered relationships between 
genetic markers of neuroglobin and functional outcomes. These findings are 
groundbreaking and have the potential to make a tremendous impact on her field. 
-Page 7 
Several_acuIty members share this perspective on the potential impact of the petitioner's work, 
but the what impact this work has had on the efforts of researchers at other 
institutions. also stated: 
I understand the USCIS wants to know why a national interest waiver is sought for 
[the petitioner] rather than going the route of labor certification. The reason is that 
the ability to make significant advances in research is directly dependent on the skill, 
insight, and genius of the researchers. Labor certification makes no distinction or 
allowances between a minimally qualified U.S. worker, and a person that possesses 
the "right stuff' for success in the work in question. By her accomplishments on the 
project described, [the petitioner] has proven that she has extraordinary abilities, well 
beyond that of the vast majority of our professional members. Acknowledgment of 
this ability and allowing it to thrive in the United States is definitely in the area of 
national interest. In my research, there is no substitute for ingenuity and the "right 
stuff," and those qualities will not be selected for by labor certification. Since there is 
a critical shortage of nursing faculty, particularly those who hold her qualifications, it 
is in the national interest of health care research in the United States and in nursing 
education in the United States to grant her an immigrant visa. 
With respect to the assertion that the labor certification process does not account for "the ability to 
make significant advances in research," Congress established no blanket waiver for scientific 
researchers, and USCIS has no authority to create one. Congress did, in fact, create other immigrant 
classifications for the most distinguished researchers, with no labor certification requirement, at 
section 203(b)(l)(A) and 203(b)(l)(B) of the Act. The former classification encompasses aliens of 
extraordinary ability in the sciences, while the latter accommodates outstanding professors and 
researchers, and requires an offer of employment but not a labor certification. 
The assertion that "there is a critical shortage of nursing faculty," if true, would tend to indicate that 
the petitioner could obtain a labor certification. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are 
available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Matter 0/ New 
York State Dept. o/Transportation at 221. 
As a co-mentor for [the petitioner], I worked closely with her in the research project 
regarding cerebral ischemia. Her cutting-edge idea is that neuroglobin is up-regulated 
when central neuron system undergoes a hypoxia e.g. ischemic stroke and traumatic 
brain injury .... She and I established an animal cerebral ischemic model, and 
investigated the changes after a short time of ischemia in rats .... Recently, she ... 
successfully figured out the relationship between the changes of neuroglobin and 
disability outcomes following traumatic brain injury (TBI) in patients .... [S)he has 
Page 8 
demonstrated her breakthrough scientific insights, independent performances, and 
undeniable contributions. 
"met [ the petitioner] in an academic conference three years ago in the 
I was very impressed by her strengths and eagerness in pursuing 
technology innovation, especially in the area of clinic research." credited the petitioner 
with "major achievements in dealing with the complex and changing ethical issues concerning the 
rights of patients to receive a better quality of care in a critical hospitalization situation," and stated 
that she "has developed more effective ways to diagnose, treat, and prevent illness." _ a 
chemical manufacturer and "expert in water soluble polymer technology," did not establish his 
credentials in nursing or medical research that would permit him to render an expert opinion 
regarding the petitioner's work. 
did not specify how he knows of the petitioner or her work, but letter contains 
biographical details that~ould not have found in the petitio~hed and presented 
work. (The record indicates that the petitioner worked in the city o_before traveling to 
Pittsburgh.) _discussed, in detail, the petitioner's work with brain proteins, but, like_ 
did not establish his own expertise or credentials in that area. described himself as "an 
experienced chest physician specializing in chest X-ray reading in the fields of pulmonary diseases 
and pulmonary oncology treatments," without explaining how this specialty overlaps with the 
petitioner's work. 
A passage in letter reads: "I understand the INS wants to know why [the petitioner] is 
seeking a national interest waiver rather than going the more usual route of obtaining a labor 
certification. The reason is that the ability to make significant advances in research is directly 
dependent on the skill, insight, and of the researcher." This passage is almost identical 
to a previously quoted section letter, suggesting that at least one of the two 
witnesses, possibly both, followed a template either from the other witness or some unnamed source. 
On the director instructed the petitioner to "submit further evidence 
demonstrating [the impact of her] specific prior achievements." The director stated that the 
petitioner had not shown that her published and presented research had discernibly influenced others 
in her field. 
In response, counsel acknowledged that the petitioner "does not have an impressive number of either 
publications or citations by other scientists to her publications," but asked nevertheless for 
"exceptional and open-minded consideration because we believe she is of much greater value to our 
country than many of her peers in her field of research." Counsel claimed that the petitioner's 
-Page 9 
background alone sets her apart from the majority of her peers .... How often does 
this happen, for a nurse to become a Ph.D. graduate so she could connect the real life 
practice and suffering to scientific research to help advance both medical science and 
caring practice? Not very often! Maybe one out of a million. And millions of 
patients will benefit from her combined expertise in both nursing and scientific 
research. 
This combination of speculation and hyperbole contributes nothing of substance to the record. It 
may be unusual for a nurse to earn a doctorate and conduct medical research, but this does not force 
the conclusion that "millions of patients will benefit from" this unusual combination of credentials. 
Scarcity does not equal or imply importance. 
Counsel added: 
Going through the labor certification process will undoubtedly deny [the petitioner's] 
opportunity to contribute to our nation's scientific research as she is still in her early 
years of Postdoctoral research which does not provide opportunity for immigrant visa 
petition, not to even mention a position that requires both knowledge and experience 
both in nursing and scientific research. 
Counsel, here, appears to argue that, because the petitioner "is still in her early years of Postdoctoral 
research," she is not yet in a position to secure a permanent job offer with labor certification. 
Nevertheless, the argument appears to go, the petitioner's potential to benefit the United States in the 
future outweighs her present inexperience which prevents employers from extending permanent job 
offers rather than continuing temporary training positions. Counsel offers other variations on the 
basic argument that the petitioner's potential to benefit the United States is such a foregone 
conclusion that USCIS may as well grant the waiver now, rather than insist that a future employer in 
the United States pursue the bothersome formality of obtaining a labor certification. This argument, 
however phrased, is not persuasive. An alien with little or no track record of impact and influence 
carmot qualify for a waiver based on her confidence, however sincere, that such impact and 
influence will follow. A postdoctoral researcher can qualify for the waiver, but eligibility must rest 
on demonstrable evidence rather than on expectations. 
The director, in the request for evidence, asserted that letters from independent witnesses have more 
weight than letters from faculty members at the petitioner's own institution. In response, the 
petitioner submitted five new witness letters, four of them from.faculty members and the fifth 
from a witness who' " That fifth witness is_ 
who asserted that one of the petitioner's 
thim-unpUIJwme:a papers "will be important groundwork in eventually enabling clinical investigators 
to identify risk factors for poor outcome and then to tailor (personalize) treatment for those with 
these risk factors in order to improve outcomes." asserted: "Since [the petitioner] is 
only one year into her postdoctoral training, it is not surprising that her research is only beginning to 
be seen in the published literature. . . . I expect we will see her work not only indexed in 
Page 10 
interdisciplinary journals but increasingly cited." This speculative claim is an example of the 
argument that, while the petitioner has not yet had a significant impact, she surely will and therefore 
should receive a waiver. 
in her second letter on the petitioner's behalf, stated that, due to the slow pace of the 
publication process, "it is of no surprise that [the petitioner's] work has not been cited yet. It 
typically takes several years after completion of a post-doctoral fellowship to achieve such an 
ac(;onlpli's ,l)r1:~nt. I believe [the petitioner] is emerging as a leader in [her] field." The factors that 
cited to support the latter claim - such as the aforementioned young investigator 
award, and ajob interview with the_- are not persuasive. The AAO has already discussed the 
petitioner's award, and the possibility of an imminent job offer is a poor argument for waiving the 
job offer requirement. As previously noted, lltimately did employ the petitioner, who is 
eligible to work temporarily as an H-J B nonimmigrant during what is, by definition, a temporary 
postdoctoral position. 
OHHCt"J too soon to see citation of the petitioner's work. He 
stated: "it takes quite some time for such citations to be even possible given the time frame of 
journal publication," and claimed that the petitioner "has been a leading scientist pioneering at the 
forefront of the study ofneruoglobin [sic] in human clinical populations." The implied argument is 
that it is too soon to tell how influential the petitioner's work will prove to be, but it is in the national 
interest to assume that it will be very influential; and that early research into a specific subject is 
bound to be, by definition, foundational. Again and again, the record returns to the core argument 
that a premature conclusion about the significance of the petitioner's work is preferable to the 
presumed alternative, in which (for reasons unexplained) the petitioner is otherwise ineligible to 
immigrate into the United States. 
stated: 
Although I only recently met the candidate, I have learned about her important work 
and believe that there are many reasons for awarding her Green Card status. I will list 
five: 
1) [The petitioner] has an exemplary background in both the areas of academia 
and research .... 
2) Not only does [the petitioner] focus on the mechanism of cerebral 
hypoxic/ischemic insult, but she also uses a genetic perspective to better understand 
individuals and how they cope with illness/trauma. 
Active in conferences . . . and attention from the_ 
4) [The petitioner] brings to her scientific work an[] enthusiasm to help people 
who have suddenly lost their physical, psychological, and emotional capacities find a 
way to continue their life journey with hope. 
--Page 11 
5) The combination of being a nurse and a PhD researcher is very rare but 
extremely valuable. It strongly suggests that [the petitioner1 will not only work on 
problems of high clinical relevance but also serve as an important role model for 
others in the nursing profession. 
None of the listed reasons is a strong basis for the waiver. The list, as a whole, is essentially an 
argument that the petitioner should receive the waiver because she is well qualified in an important 
area of research. Like other witnesses, instead of comparing the petitioner with others in her field, 
asserts that the petitioner's future promise justifies immigration benefits now. 
that the petitioner's "research promises to break new ground," 
huma.n studies have . . . been published" since the discovery of neuroglobin in 
2000, and "[01nly [the is exploring the association between neuroglobin and cerebral 
hypoxic/ischemic insult." described the petitioner's then-ongoing research in technical 
detail, but instead of describing the petitioner'S proven contributions, _discussed what the 
petitioner "endeavors" and "hopes to provide." 
The director denied the petition on April 5, 2010. The director acknowledged the substantial 
intrinsic merit and national scope of medical research, and quoted from several witness letters. The 
director concluded, however, that the petitioner had not produced any objective evidence of the 
significance of her minimal publication record. 
On appeal, counsel contends that the director "has failed to recognize the Appellant's remarkable 
contribution to the study of neuroprotective genes' impact in traumatic brain injury." On the 
contrary, the petitioner has failed to support the claim that her contribution is "remarkable." The 
value of this kind of research is not in dispute, which is why the director readily acknowledged its 
substantial intrinsic merit. Pursuing this line of research does not guarantee a waiver, and neither 
does being a nurse who pursues this line of research. 
Counsel claims that the petitioner's" ground breaking research has an enormous impact on the study 
of traumatic brain injury," but the petitioner has been unable to provide any evidence in support of 
the assertion that her research has had an "enormous impact." 
Counsel states that the petitioner's research "is sufficiently novel and unique to warrant exceptional 
ability." As previously explained in depth, "exceptional ability" is not the threshold for a national 
interest waiver; it is one facet of the underlying immigrant classification which, in turn, normally 
requires ajob offer with labor certification. 
Counsel states that the petitioner "had already submitted to the Service eleven (11) letters of support 
by well-known experts in the field who have either worked with [the 
familiar with her achievements but have never met her. Another letter 
_ has now been added." This passage from the appellate brief illustrates some of the 
deficiencies in counsel's approach. Counsel simply asserts that the petitioner'S witnesses are "well-
Page 12 
known experts in the field," when that claim is a conclusion to be proven rather than a premise to be 
assumed. With respect to the assertion that some witnesses are "familiar with [the petitioner's] 
achievements but have never met he.r " the overwhelming majority of the letters (including the newly 
submitted letter on appeal) are from faculty members. 
The letter be newly submitted, but it is not new. The date on the 
letter, _ 2010, coincides with the preparation of other letters submitted in response to the 
February request for evidence. Why the petitioner did not submit this letter at that time is not clear. 
~ states: "It is very important to the national interest that we continue to develop nurse 
scientists who can continue to transform the field into an investigative field." Whatever the merits of 
this assertion, it does not establish or justify a blanket waiver for scientific researchers who are also 
trained nurses. echoes prior assertions that the petitioner "is only in her first year of 
post-graduate training .... It is too early for her work to be sited [sic] extensively." •••••• 
opines, nevertheless, that the petitioner "is clearly on tract [sic] to contribute additional publications 
in the field." 
Counsel is correct that citations are not the only possible way to gauge the impact of a researcher's 
work, but in their absence, the petitioner must establish some other equally objective measure. The 
petitioner has not done this, instead asserting (through witnesses) the belief that citations are bound 
to come along because her work is so ground breaking. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and the AAO has considered them above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 r&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; uscrs may, as the AAO has done above, evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id at 795. uscrs 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 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The letters submitted in support of the petition mostly represent a single institution, and do not 
establish that the petitioner's contributions have influenced the field. Instead, the petitioner'S own 
mentors and collaborators express confidence that the petitioner's work will be influential once it has 
had time to do so. 
After quoting numerous witnesses who state that the petitioner has no citation history because it is 
too early in her career, counsel asserts that the petitioner "has over thirteen (13) years of experience 
in her field of endeavor." To reach this figure, counsel counts the petitioner's experience as a nurse 
before she began training to be a researcher. Length of experience is a factor in determining 
exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). Counsel thus considers the petitioner to be a 
Page 13 
nurse when judging her length of experience; a researcher when discussing the broader impact of her 
work; and a nurse/researcher when advancing the mistaken argument that the relative scarcity of 
such workers is a strong factor in favor of granting the waiver. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner has published her work, and presented her findings at conferences. 
Counsel fails to explain how this distinguishes the petitioner from others in her field. Nothing in the 
record suggests that it is the norm for researchers to keep their findings to themselves. Rather, 
dissemination of one's findings, either in print or through presentations, is not only expected, but it is 
arguably the very goal of doing such research in the first place. 
An undated personal statement from the petitioner discusses her research and employment history in 
greater detail, but otherwise adds little to the record. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.