dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Oriental Medicine

(b)(6)
DA TENOV (! 4 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administr ative Appeals Offi ce (AAO) 
20 Massachu setts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washin gton, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions . If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to prese nt new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this deci sion. Please review the Form l-290B instructions at 
http:/ /www .uscis.gov /forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C .F.R . § 1 03.5 . Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
IJ"t~e~~~~trative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as an oriental medicine specialist.1 The petitioner asserts that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest 
of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner 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 legal brief and copies of previously submitted exhibits. 
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 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, orwelfare 
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 sole stated ground for denial is that the petitioner has not established that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
1 
The petitioner submitted a job offer letter from California. 
has reported the university 's closure, and the California Secretary 
of State has suspended the university 's corporate status. Sources:.==:---
(printouts added to record September 18, 20 14). 
The job offer, therefore, no longer appears to be valid. This information does not directly affect the outcome of the 
petition , because eligibility for the national interest waiver rests on the qualifications of the foreign worker seeking the 
waiver , and the petitioner has not indicated that his ability to serve the national interest depend s on employment at 
Ther efore, this closure is not derogatory evidence resulting in the denial of an otherwise approvable petition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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, 101stCong., 1stSess. , 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 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. 
In re New York State Dep 't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. 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. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past recordjustifies projections offuture benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included 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. !d. 
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 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 . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on September 12, 2013. 
An accompanying introductory statement provided further details about the petitioner and his work. 
Regarding his field, the petitioner stated: 
Oriental Medicine ... is based on the philosophies of Yin and Yang, polar opposite 
qualities that permeate everything in the Universe, combined with the concept of Qi, 
the body's living energy .... 
The concept of Qi relates to the energy of the entire universe. In the human body, Qi 
is perceived to flow through the body in pathways called "meridians" ... [which] 
branch into progressively smaller branches, eventually connecting to the nucleus of 
every cell in the body where our DNA is stored. · The energy frequencies of Qi are 
thus hypothesized to be able to influence even the expression of DNA and our genetic 
makeup . ... 
There are generally two types of remedies in Oriental Medicine : Acupuncture and 
Herbology. Acupuncture is the primary treatment modality within Oriental Medicine 
which uses very thin and fine needles, inserted at key points along the meridians, to 
stimulate and regulate the flow of Qi. This can restore balance to the flow of Qi in 
the meridians and organs, thereby returning the body to a state of normal health. 
Chinese Herbology is another treatment modality within Oriental Medicine. 
Thousands of years of recorded use of medicinal plants has been documented in 
Chinese history, and the documented experience of hundreds of generations of 
Chinese Herbologists goes into every herbal formula. 
The petitioner asserted "there is increasing evidence, proven research studies, and testimonials from 
medical professionals on the positive effects of Oriental Medicine and in treating certain types of 
diseases," but the petitioner did not identify or submit this evidence. 
With respect to his own work in oriental medicine, the petitioner stated: 
[The petitioner's] research focuses on utilizing oriental medicine treatments and 
acupuncture for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, severe acne, skin care, 
and hair loss. 
. . . He is not only one of the most respected researchers in the field of Oriental 
Medicine, but he is also the CEO [chief executive officer] and Founder of one of the 
largest Oriental Clinic Networks in South Korea: 
... [The petitioner] currently oversees and manages more than 
eighteen (18) clinics in South Korea, earning more annual revenue than any other 
oriental medicine clinic in Korea. The success of [the petitioner 's] clinics is a clear 
testament to his original research, achievements, and reputation in the field .... 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
He has proven himself time and time again to millions of patients in South 
Korea. 
(Emphasis in original.) The record lacks evidence to support several claims, such as the assertion 
that the petitioner's clinics "earn[] more annual revenue than any other oriental medicine clinic in 
Korea," and the claim that "millions of patients" have directly benefited from the petitioner's work. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings . Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter ofTreasure Craft a,[ California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1972)). 
The petitioner's claims about Alzheimer 's disease (AD) derive from his doctoral disset1ation, in 
which he "was able to isolate many novel compounds from herbs, some of which actually improved 
dementia with fewer side effects and is [sic] regarded as a potential anti-AD drug." The petitioner's 
dissertation dates from more than a decade before the petition's 2013 filing date. The 
petitioner's introductory statement claimed that "his specialized treatment methods on AD .. . were 
extremely successful and ... can equally have the same impact on American patients ," but the 
petitioner has not documented the effect of his herbal treatment on human patients . The dissertation 
dealt with the compound's effect on rats, and the petitioner has submitted no evidence of clinical 
trials on human subjects. 
The petitioner submitted background evidence about AD, including "2013 Alzheimer 's Disease 
Facts and Figures" from the Alzheimer 's Association. This fact sheet says of AD that there is no 
"way to prevent it, cure it or even slow its progression ," which does not indicate that the petitioner's 
doctoral research from has yielded an effective 
treatment for AD. 
The record contains no evidence that the petitioner conducted any research on AD after he 
completed his graduate studies. Rather, in recent years the petitioner's "claim to fame has been his 
innovative treatment of the skin and hair loss," and his establishment of "one of the largest 
and most reputable oriental medical franchises in Korea, specializing in utilizing oriental medicine 
ointments, lotions, shampoos, and acupuncture for skin and hair treatments." The petitioner 
submitted copies of invoices , stating they document the sale of millions of product units. The 
documents show high numbers , but the invoices are in Korean without English translations, and 
therefore the petitioner has not established that the high numbers relate to unit sales rather than to 
prices. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall be accompanied by a 
full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by 
the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). The petitioner has submitted only a capsule translation , indicating 
that the documents include a sales agreement between 
The petitioner submitted printouts from web site, but the materials are almost entirely in 
Korean, without the required translations. Occasional English words and phrases appear, such as the 
phrase ' [sic]" within a graphic on the page headed "Fundametals 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
[sic]." The petitioner also submitted photographs of products, such as 
labeled in English as a product to "[p]revent the demage hair [sic]." 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that clinics run by the petitioner received the 
' and "Appreciation Awards" from the 
and 
The petitioner submitted background information 
about television programs, and the record indicates that the petitioner was the "Team Doctor" 
for several shows. The petitioner submitted no information about the other awarding entities. 
The petitioner submitted several documents identified as "published material about him in 
professional publications and other major media outlets." The documents appear to be, for the most 
part, printouts from the World Wide Web, and are in Korean. The petitioner did not submit 
complete, certified translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3). Instead, the 
petitioner submitted English-language cover pages for each item. One such page, for example, 
reads: ' another reads 
These title sheets do not give sufficient context 
to the exhibits , for example by showing whether the petitioner is the focus of each piece, or is only 
briefly quoted. Other materials appear to show the petitioner on the set of various productions. 
These latter materials do not appear to be "published material" as such, but rather own 
promotional materials (several photographs include a superimposed logo in the manner of an 
identifying watermark). 
An exhibit list submitted with the petition identified Exhibit 9 as "Book, Journal, and Research 
Publications, Authored by Self-Petitioner." Exhibit 9 includes one English-language article from 
published in and four Korean-language documents from 2010-2013 that show no evidence of 
publication in any book or journal. English-language cover pages identify the petitioner as the 
"lecturer" and provide individual dates, indicating that these documents pertain to oral presentations 
rather 
than published works. 
The petitioner's own curriculum vitae includes a section marked "publications," which identifies the 
journal article, but not the subsequent lectures. The "publications" section also includes the 
petitioner's master's thesis and his doctoral dissertation, but the petitioner submitted no evidence 
that those graduate papers have been published. 
The petitioner submitted five letters in support of the petition, all from individuals who work at or 
graduated from where the petitioner earned all three of his degrees. 
(Dr. also studied at at the same time as the petitioner.) 
Dr. a professor at praised the petitioner's graduate student work, and asserted 
that the petitioner "has impacted the oriental medical clinic system in a way fellow oriental medicine 
experts never imagined" through his clinics and products. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Another professor at is Dr. who asserted that the petitioner "invented new 
treatments and oriental medicines by which he provided service to entire communities, [and] he 
successfully commercialized it so that the medicine is readily available and affordable to those who 
need treatment the most." Dr. stated: 
Dr. 
After I witnessed [the] sensational success of [the petitioner's] specialized oriental 
medical franchise clinic, I established ... my 
own specialized oriental medical franchise Clinic for COPD, asthma, rhinitis, and 
insomnia. Other fellow oriental medical doctors also opened their own specialized 
oriental medical clinics. Thus, [the petitioner] made a significant contribution to the 
field of oriental medicine by influencing others to successfully specialize their 
treatment to better benefit the individual patients and ultimately the market itself. 
, studied at at the same time as the . -
petitioner. Dr. 
professor at 
stated: 
The petitioner is one of the most successful and creative Oriental Medicine 
Specialists I know and he has positively influenced the concept of oriental medicine 
and acupuncture systems in Korea. Traditionally, oriental medical clinics provided 
only general medical services, without specializing in a specific disease or treatment. 
[The petitioner] established a s ecialized oriental medical clinic franchise for skin 
diseases and hair loss, ... [The petitioner] 
developed oriental medicine sham oos and tonics to prevent and treat hair loss. [The 
petitioner] also invented sulfur gel and bifid us to treat skin 
problems. 
Furthermore, [the petitioner] developed to treat acne .... 
is recognized as the best oriental medical 
clinic to treat ·acne in Korea. 
alumnus Dr. now a professor at , stated: 
[The petitioner] has an extraordinary ability as an oriental medicine specialist and he 
made tremendous contributions to the field of oriental medicine already. There is not 
even the slightest doubt in my mind as to his incredible accomplishments , both as an 
oriental medical doctor and a researcher. He is the most creative and successful 
oriental medicine specialist I have known and he has made a significant impact on 
many different areas of oriental medicine throughout the last decade. 
For example, [the petitioner] established a unique medical clinic, specializing in 
dermatology, which is an unprecedented way of making oriental medicine to help 
people with various skin diseases and hair loss issues .... 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The petitioner] is also one of the most ingenious scientists of our time .... Numerous 
oriental medical doctors successfully utilize [the petitioner's] 
and other new oriental medicines to treat skin diseases and hair loss problems. 
[The petitioner] also developed the new concept of oriental medical cosmetic surgery 
utilizing acupuncture and herbal medicine. 
president of the received a doctorate 
from in 1987 while the petitioner was an undergraduate student there. Dr. stated: 
[The petitioner's] professional accomplishments are well-known in the field of 
Oriental Medicine. . . . [The petitioner] developed new treatments, lotions and 
shampoo based on oriental medicine to prevent and cure hair loss and skin problems. 
[The petitioner] also initiated reconstructive procedures based on oriental medicine. 
[The petitioner] developed the acupuncture procedure referred to as "Mae sun 
Therapy" which tightens the skin and has the same effect as a face lift. This 
procedure has advantages over the western plastic surgery as it does not leave any 
scars and people can take a shower and put on makeup immediately following the 
procedure. 
[The petitioner] also continues to help oriental medicine gam popularity and 
[become] more accessible to the younger generations. [The petitioner] has 
participated as the primary oriental medicine doctor/consultant in popular Korean 
television dramas. Moreover, [the petitioner] took care of the health of the actors and 
staff and gave medical advice for Korean historical dramas. 
The petitioner provided no evidence to corroborate his or the writers' claims regarding his market 
dominance in South Korea. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The above letters indicated 
that the petitioner influenced his field primarily by establishing a specialized clinic franchise and 
marketing hair and skin care products. The job offer letter from indicated that the 
petitioner, "on a full-time, permanent basis ... will continue to perform and expand on his vast 
research at our facilities, engage with our leading oriental medicine specialists and instructors, and 
hold seminars and lecture on his career and research findings for our staff and students." Thus, the 
petitioner's stated intention is to work in an academic setting. 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on October 20, 2013, instructing the petitioner to 
submit evidence to establish that the benefit from his proposed employment would be national in 
scope, and to establish "a past record of specific prior achievement that justifies projections of future 
benefit to the national interest." 
In response, the petitioner submitted a statement claiming that his "expertise and research findings 
can benefit the U.S. in two distinct and broad ways, which are proven to be effective and free of any 
side effects." The first of these two ways is "Treating Alzheimer's Disease," although the discussion 
that followed did not indicate that the petitioner's work had been "proven to be effective" in treating 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
AD. Rather, the statement repeated the claim that the petitioner's "encouraging preclinical and 
clinical trials suggest that his findings are a promising candidate for the treatment of AD." The 
petitioner's response to the RFE included no evidence that the petitioner continues to research AD 
treatments, or to show that clinical trials on human subjects have established the effectiveness of his 
proposed AD treatment. 
The second way the petitioner claimed that his work would benefit the United States is, as described 
earlier, treating skin disorders and hair loss. The petitioner 's discussion emphasized previously 
submitted materials, but the petitioner submitted five new exhibits in response to the RFE. 
The petitioner submitted a second letter (dated December 19, 2013) from Dr. 
who provided more information about the petitioner 's proposed employment at 
Dr. described the petitioner's AD research as set forth in the petitioner's 1999 doctoral 
dissertation, stating that the herbal remedy studied in the petitioner's 
dissertation, "has been widely used 
in China for the treatment of Alzheimer 's," indicating that the 
petitioner's contribution was not in proposing the treatment, but in studying how it acts upon the 
body. Dr. stated that the petitioner "reported reductions in glutamate-induced toxicity in 
neurons in the rats, possibly through modulation of glutamate-NMDA receptor interaction , or of the 
passage of Ca2+ through associated ion channels." Dr. did not indicate that the petitioner 
continued this research after he completed his doctorate 14 years before filing the petition. 
Dr. asserted that the benefit from the petitioner's work will be national in scope because of his 
skill for "identifying new techniques and methods that can help patients all across the U.S." 
The petitioner submitted copies of sales documents for roducts. The petitioner submitted an 
English translation for one page of sales figures, showing that 
in from January 2013 through 
November 2013. These figures do not support the petitioner's claim to have sold products to 
"millions of patients." 
The petitioner submits what appear to be before-and-after photographs of the scalps of several 
patients, purporting to show the effectiveness of the petitioner's hair loss treatments. The petitioner 
submitted no evidence to allow a comparison with other products, to show that the petitioner 's 
treatment is more effective or has otherwise had a significant effect on the market or field. There is 
no blanket waiver for developers of skin care products , and therefore the petitioner cannot establish 
eligibility simply by establishing that his products work as advertised. 
The remaining exhibits include copies of a Certificate of Service Mark Registration , showing that 
the petitioner owns the term and a Certificate of Joint Venture Agreement between 
The director had not disputed that the petitioner owns or that 
actively conducts business in South Korea. Registration of intellectual property and 
participation in a joint venture do not demonstrate influence or national benefit. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The director denied the petition on January 17, 2014. The director found that the petitioner had 
satisfied the first prong of the NYSDOT national interest test, regarding substantial intrinsic merit, 
but not the other two prongs, concerning national scope and impact on the field. 
Herbal treatments can have pharmacological effects. The creation of effective medications has 
substantial intrinsic merit. 
Concerning national scope, the director stated: 
The petitioner asserts that his work will be national in scope, but no evidence has 
been presented as to his actual proposed employment, and it is therefore not clear that 
it would be national in scope. The record indicates that the petitioner has done a 
small level of research; however, it does not appear that such research has been the 
petitioner's primary aim. 
Rather, the petitioner has been primarily working as a CEO and founder of 
[T]he impact of a single oriental medicine specialist in one geographic area would be 
so attenuated at the national level as to be negligible. The evidence does not 
demonstrate that the primary focus of the [petitioner ' s] employment would be 
national in scope. 
The petitioner has relied heavily on evidence regarding his line of commercial products for acne and 
hair loss. The manufacture and distribution of such products can be on a national scale, which 
would lend such activities national scope. As the director observed, however, treatment of 
individual patients yields substantially more limited benefits, confined to those patients whom the 
petitioner would personally treat. The petitioner could have a broader impact in this area by 
establishing a chain of clinics as he did in Korea, where other practitioners use methods that the 
petitioner developed , but the record does not show that the petitioner has done or will do this in the 
United States, or that market conditions are sufficiently similar in the two countries to support the 
assumption that the petitioner will have success in the United States comparable to his claimed 
success in Korea. 
On appeal, the petitioner , via the appellate brief, asserts that the director did not sufficiently consider 
Dr. December 19, 2013 letter, which indicated that the petitioner will engage in medical 
research, which has national scope. The petitioner asserts that Dr. letter "outlines several of 
[the petitioner's] research projects in detail." The projects detailed in the letter all took place well 
before the filing of the petition. The petitioner 's AD research culminated in his 1999 dissertation, 
and the acne research described by Dr. led to a journal article published in 2009. Dr. 
referred to the petitioner's "continual groundbreaking research findings," but the record does not 
establish that the petitioner's research has been either continuous or groundbreaking. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Dr. stated that would provide a platform for the petitioner's research but, its 
subsequent closure aside, the record contains no evidence about what research facilities the 
university offered, or to show that the university has produced published research in the past. Even 
when was still in operation, the record did not establish that it was a viable 
research institution. 
The petitioner is correct that medical research produces benefits that are national in scope, but the 
petitioner did not refute the director's finding that the petitioner 's recent research work has been 
peripheral at most. The appellate brief indicates that the petitioner "plans to expand his clinics into 
the U.S.," although his job offer at was "on a full-time ... basis" with no stated 
clinical duties. 
The petitioner , in the appellate brief, repeats prior claims about his AD research and his more recent 
efforts relating to skin care and hair loss. The director already considered these claims when the 
petitioner stated them in response to the RFE. The petitioner's assertions on appeal regarding this 
point add nothing of substance to the record. 
With respect to the third prong of the NYSDOT national interest test, the director found that the 
petitioner had submitted general attestations regarding the petitioner's abilities. As is clear from the 
wording of section 203(b)(2)(A), exceptional ability does not, by itself, warrant a waiver of the job 
offer requirement. The director found that the petitioner's "evidence does not establish that an 
exemption from the job offer requirement presents a national benefit so great as to outweigh the 
national interest inherent in the labor certification process." 
The petitioner, on appeal, contends that the director did not sufficiently consider the letters submitted 
in support of the petition, and that the director mischaracterized them as containing only general 
praise for the petitioner 's skills and experience. The petitioner calls the letters "independent 
advisory opinions," but the writers did not claim to be independent, and many of them taught or 
studied alongside the petitioner a~ 
While some of the letters contained particular claims of fact that the director did not direct! y address, 
the letters do not have substantial weight on those points. The opinions of experts in the field are not 
without weight and have received consideration above. USeiS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International , 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm 'r 1988). However, users is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters 
from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may, as 
above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. USeiS 
may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated , in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 
2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also 
Matter of Sojjici , 22 I&N Dec. 165. The petitioner did not submit corroborating evidence to bolster 
the weight of the reference letters. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDEN T DECISION 
Page 12 
The petitioner asserts that the director gave insufficient weight to several previous exhibits relating 
to his work in Korea, including his work on SBS programs and his claimed media coverage, but the 
identified exhibits either contain minimal explanatory information or are in the Korean language 
without the required complete certified translations. 
The petitioner claims to have met several requirements that relate to a different immigrant 
classification , that of an alien of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The 
petitioner, for instance, states that he "is a member of numerous professional organizations that 
require outstanding achievements of their members." This claim relates to the extraordinary ability 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). The petitioner documented his memberships in several 
organizations , but did not establish that the organizations require outstanding achievements of their 
members. See Matter of So.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The petitioner claims to have earned 
"international recognition, " but submits no evidence of recognition outside of South Korea. 
The petitioner need not meet the higher threshold of extraordinary ability to qualify for the national 
interest waiver. Nevertheless , the petitioner claims to have met that higher threshold, and therefore 
the petitioner 's credibility is contingent on the extent to which the evidence supports his claim. 
Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and 
sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N 
Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that his influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
field of endeavor." Id. at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole"). 
As is clear from 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. 
Because we review the record on a de novo basis, we may identify additional grounds for denial 
beyond what the Service Center identified in the initial decision. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 
736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dar v. INS, 891 F.2d 
997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). Review of the record shows that the petitioner has failed to establish 
eligibility for the immigrant classification underlying the application for the national interest waiver. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
The petitioner has not claimed to qualify as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or 
business. He claimed eligibility only as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
The director granted this point without further discussion , but the petitioner 's evidence is not 
sufficient to support that finding. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) includes the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate . ... 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as 
well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
The petitioner asserted that his "profession requires an advanced degree," but he cited no evidence to 
support this assertion, or to show that his intended occupation requires even a bachelor's degree. 
The petitioner 's possession of such degrees is not evidence that they are required for entry into the 
occupation. Furthermore, the petitioner 's degrees are from South Korea, and he submitted no 
evidence to establish their equivalency to advanced degrees from U.S. universities. 
The petitioner may be a member of the professions , and his degrees may be equivalent to United 
States advanced degrees, but he did not submit evidence to meet his burden of proof. The record, as 
it now stands, does not support the petitioner's claim to be a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, as the relevant regulation defines those terms. 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ~~ 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.