dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pathology

(b)(6)
DATE: NOV 0 5 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 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 (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 present 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 decision. Please review the Form I-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. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
_)) OUA!dhG (1 Ron Rosenberg 
V Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before us at 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 a pathologist. At the time he filed the petition on his own behalf, the 
petitioner was a surgical pathology fellow at the He is 
currently a clinical fellow in hematopathology at the . a division of the 
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, employment letters, citation evidence, and background 
materials. 
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, 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 director did not dispute that the· petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, P.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 reNew York State Dep't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Cornrn'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
r 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 record justifies projections of future 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 USCIS 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. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on August 21, 2013. An 
accompanying introductory statement included the contention that the petitioner: 
has made substantial contributions to the field of Toxicology and Pathology. His 
work has focused specifically on investigations in lipopolysaccharide and smoke 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
models of lung injury and evaluating the efficacy of novel strategies for various lung 
disorders that can contribute to future clinical studies and therapeutic treatment of 
human inflammatory lung diseases .... 
His specific contributions are above what can be expected from others with similar 
education and experience; these consistent discoveries and breakthroughs suggest that 
he will likely continue to make substantial contributions to the field of endeavor. ... 
[I]t will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find another researcher who can 
mirror [the petitioner's] contributions to this nationally imperative area of research. 
The petitioner's introductory statement also included a discussion of his "impressive record .of 
authorship," including 20 articles and six book chapters, which "have been cited a total of [68] 
times according to Google Scholar . . . [by] leading researchers around the world" (emphasis in 
original). The petitioner submits evidence showing 68 citations of his published work, most of them 
independent. The most-cited article had 14 citations, including two self-citations. Google Scholar 
indicated that the petitioner's work has an h-index of 7, meaning that seven of his articles each have 
seven or more citations, and an ilO-index of 1, meaning that one of his articles has ten or more 
citations. 
The petitioner cited an unpublished appellate decision from 2002, which reads, in part: 
The record demonstrates 19 worldwide citations of the petitioner's published work, 
primarily of a single article of which the petitioner was the primary author. ... [The 
16 independent] citations show that the petitioner's past work has had widespread and 
lasting influence on liquid crystal research. 
The petitioner, at the time, did not submit evidence to permit a comparison between citation rates in 
liquid crystal research and the petitioner's own field of pathology. The petitioner submitted no 
evidence to establish that the facts of his petition are comparable to those in the unpublished 
decision. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all 
USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
The assertion below concerns the claimed significance of the petitioner's research work: 
[The petitioner] has made, and continues to make, significant contributions to the 
field of Toxicology and Pathology, all of which place him among the top scientists 
working in his field of endeavor. ... [W]hen performing a Google Scholar database 
search using the keywords "endothelin converting arid lipopolysaccharide induced," 
[the petitioner's] (first-authored) article on the subject appears [6]th out of 
[10,900] scholarly articles on this highly-specialized research topic. . .. Thus, 
based on the search logic of Google Scholar, [the petitioner's] publication is one of 
(b)(6)
Page5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
the most important and influential articles when it comes to the research of the use 
of endothelin antagonists in acute lung injury. 
(Emphasis in original.) The Google Scholar search described above was for five independent words, 
rather than a phrase or a combination of words and phrases. Thus, the search engine result would 
include every article that includes all of the keywords, whatever their context. The relatively high 
placement of the petitioner's article among those results appears to be because the article title 
includes the phrases "endothelin-converting" and "lipopolysaccharide-induced." The petitioner 
submitted only the first page of the search results, and therefore the record does not show that all of 
the search engine's "hits" relate to the "highly-specialized research topic ... of the use of endothelin 
antagonists in acute lung injury," or that the petitioner's article "is one of the most important and 
influential" in that area. 
Furthermore, of the ten articles identified on the Google Scholar printout, the petitioner's article has 
the smallest number of citations (7). Eight of the other nine articles have 30 or more citations, and 
three of them have over 100 citations each, with the most-cited article having 214 citations. 
The petitioner submitted several letters from third parties. Dr. is a professor at , 
where he "served as [the petitioner's] mentor throughout his MS and PhD 
programs in toxicology." He stated: 
[A]mong the many professionals I have worked with and mentored, [the petitioner] is 
amongst the most outstanding in terms of technical proficiency, innovation, and 
dedication .... (The petitioner] has been the leading mind behind ... many 
worthwhile advancements in lung health .... 
One work I would like to discuss is [the petitioner's] book chapter, 
' ... [The petitioner], in his chapter ... , 
emphasizes the relationship between · _ · ~ · · .. .. .. 
~ . in terms of acute effects .... (The petitioner] described 
his own efforts towards developing a treatment for pulmonary emphysema .... The 
availability of a newly developed test for emphysematous lung disease has helped 
confirm the effectiveness of this treatment, but the need for further testing of this 
assay is delaying development of the therapy .... 
A separate aspect of [the petitioner's] research ... is his work on 
with respect to Pathogenesis and Diagnosis .... [The petitioner], in 
order to emphasize the need for early detection of and to 
limit the development of , proposed 
the use of elastic fiber breakdown products in sputum as a means of identifying those 
at risk for ... This hypersensitive marker for injury is only one 
of [the petitioner's] remarkable innovations. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Dr. is the first author of the book chapter identified above. 
The petitioner identified as an "Independent Advisory Opinion" the letter from Dr. 
chair of the 
_ and an associate adjunct professor of pathology at - The 
petitioner was a resident in pathology at for three and a half years from 
Dr. stated: 
[The petitioner] has reported two cases of a severe delayed hemolytic transfusion 
reaction (in which there is destruction of the transfused red blood cells after months 
[sic] of the transfusion) .... [The petitioner] used multiple serological techniques to 
elucidate the antibody specificities, a technique that requires sophisticated skills · and 
knowledge. By these two cases, [the petitioner] explained the importance of 
increasing the clinical awareness of identifying the phenomenon of hemolysis with 
negative antibody workup in a post-transfusion patient as this scenario may be 
overlooked .... 
[The petitioner] has served to educate professionals on the molecular diagnosis of 
prostate cancer through his primary authorship of a book chapter, published in the 
seminal __ ... [The petitioner] has brought it to the community's 
attention that there is an urgent need for molecular markers that can accurately 
identify men with prostate cancer at an early stage .... 
There is one other project that bears discussion in presenting an accurate cross-section 
of [the petitioner's] work. [The petitioner] has worked on a comprehensive study 
involving nearly 10,000 patients to assess the predictability of urinalysis parameters 
... used in dipsticks in the diagnosis of urinary tract infection in a case study .... 
In the current practice, most physicians are utilizing the positive results of two 
dipstick parameters, leukocyte esterase . (LE) and nitrite (NT), as evidence of 
infection .... [The petitioner] has demonstrated that the uses of LE and/or NT are 
poor screening parameters as predictors of urinary tract infection .. . . 
[The petitioner] has presented this study as a poster in the annual meeting of the 
_ Of note, researchers in the field of microbiology 
have requested copies of [the] poster and there has been much expectation to read the 
full article that is submitted [to] the 
The record does not identify the researchers who "requested copies of [the petitioner's] poster" or 
show their numbers, nor does the record quantif the "expectation to read the full article." The 
record does not show that the accepted the petitioner's article, or 
that significant numbers of physicians throughout the field have changed their reliance on LE and 
NT in response to the petitioner's work. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Dr. 
referred to: 
staff scientist at the 
A study of [the petitioner's] that has gained widespread recognition, resulting in 
definite improvements in intratracheal administration of endothelin-suppressing 
agents for the treatment of respiratory disorders .... He has demonstrated that the use 
of such agents can significantly cut down the health care costs and ensur[e] a higher 
standard of care for victims of such diseases. 
The record contains no documentary evidence to show that the petitioner's research has, in fact, 
influenced patient care throughout the field. Other statements by Dr. refer to future 
potential rather than existing impact, indicating that the petitioner's "research is leading directly to 
the development of novel therapeutic treatments" and "will ultimately limit economic costs." 
Dr. toxicologist at the and editor in chief of 
__ met the petitioner at a 2008 meeting at _ Dr. 
. did not indicate that the petitioner's work has had an impact on the field; rather, he stated that 
they might possibly have such an impact in the future. He stated that the petitioner's "cutting-edge 
research studies ... have the potential to le[a]d to groundbreaking improvements in the field," and 
that the petitioner's findings regarding "a novel drug delivery system ... pave[] the way for future 
clinical studies to prevent and/or treat bacterial infections." 
Dr. 
professor at 
deputy chief medical examiner for the City of 
, stated: 
and an associate 
[The petitioner] is a renowned pathologist with an expertise in toxicology, who has 
distinguished himself by demonstrating an extraordinary ability to lay the 
groundwork for the development of new therapies and diagnostic modalities for 
various medical disorders, especially in the field of inhalational toxicology due to 
tobacco smoke. What we learned from his research is critically important for the 
development and application of .new drugs targeting reduction of inflammation in 
many lung disorders. 
Rather than provide any further information about the above subject, Dr. 
autopsies 
that he stated the petitioner had performed. 
Dr. assistant professor at the 
described two 
discussed two of the petitioner's case reports, concerning tumors of the spleen and the lymphatic 
system. Dr. stated that the petitioner's diagnoses are "landmark achievement[s]" but, because 
the disorders diagnosed "are very rare entities ... , these case reports ... get cited limitedly." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Dr. _ , senior scientist at the stated that the 
petitioner "has published an incredibly expansive amount of scientific literature, ranging a wide 
breadth of relevant topics in healthcare research," including book chapters "that evaluated the crucial 
role of the compound endothelin in magnifying lung inflammation" and a study finding that 
"individuals exposed to 'second-hand' cigarette smoke are more prone to lung infections." Dr. 
asserted that the petitioner's "research has been used as a starting point by others for further 
research into the prevention of lung disease," but did not elaborate except to state that the citation of 
the petitioner's work shows that his "novel research has been relied on by the scientific fraternity." 
In all, the letters attested more to the petitioner's potential impact than his existing influence on the 
field. 
The petitioner submitted other evidence regarding factors (such as memberships) intended to 
establish exceptional ability in the sciences. Because the petitioner readily qualifies as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree, and an additional finding of exceptional ability would 
not establish eligibility for the waiver, these materials do not require detailed discussion here. 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on September 30, 2013. The director stated that the 
petitioner had established the intrinsic merit of his occupation, but otherwise had not met the 
requirements set forth in NYSDOT. The director also noted that the majority of the letters submitted 
with the petition were from New York and Philadelphia, where the petitioner has trained, and 
therefore did not represent a geographically wider reputation. 
In response, the petitioner expanded on previous assertions regarding the citation of his published 
work. The petitioner showed that the number of citations had grown to 81, and singled out facts 
relating to specific articles: 
[The petitioner] has published in a truly impressive feat 
given that the journal has an impressive Impact Factor of 4.408 .... 
[The petitioner's] articles have also been cited much more often than those of other 
researchers in the field. For instance, [one such] publication . . . appeared in 
in 2009, and has since been cited at least 15 times .... 
However, articles published in the field of pharmacology and toxic[ olog]y in 2009 
have averaged just 10.08 citations .... [The petitioner's] work has thus been among 
the most cited in the field in the past several years. 
The impact factor of a given journal, calculated from the citation rates of individual articles, does not 
establish the impact or influence of a given article in that journal. More relevant is the assertion that 
the petitioner's 2009 article has earned more than the average number of citations for articles in the 
same field, published the same year. The petitioner supported this claim with a printout from lSI 
Web of Knowledge Essential Science Indicators, showing a table of "Average Citation Rates for 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
papers published by field, 2003-2013." The line for "Pharmacology & Toxicology" included the 
following figures: 
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
23.79 23.91 20.34 19.47 
16.57 13.38 10.08 6.72 3.65 1.09 0.11 
The above figures show that the number of citations of a given article is expected to increase over 
time, and therefore, when counting citations, it is important to consider not only the number of 
citations but also the age of the cited article. 
The same table shows much lower numbers for materials science, with an average of 14.46 citations 
after ten years, as compared to the 23.79 ten-year figure for pharmacology and toxicology. 
Therefore, while we will not revisit, here, whether the previously cited appellate decision was 
properly approved, 19 citations is a more significant number for a materials scientist working with 
liquid crystals than for a researcher in pharmacology. The petitioner is a pathologist, rather than a 
pharmacologist, but his 2009 paper appeared in a pharmacological journal and therefore the figures 
for pharmacology appear to apply. The table does not show figures for pathology, but the figures for 
"Clinical Medicine" are roughly comparable to those listed under "Pharmacology & Toxicology": 
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
25.38 24.16 
22.14 19.11 16.69 12.87 10.06 7.24 3.83 1.13 0.13 
The 15 documented citations of the petitioner's 2009 article do, as claimed, exceed the average 
citations for that year, whether the relevant field is pharmacology or clinical medicine. It presents an 
incomplete and inaccurate picture, however, to compare only the petitioner's most-cited article to the 
average in his field. When considering the impact of the petitioner's published work as a whole, we 
must compare the petitioner's overall average citation rate to the average for the field. As 
exceptional ability, defined as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered," does not suffice to qualify the petitioner for the waiver, a single example of above­
average citation does not establish influence on the field as a whole. 
The petitioner's updated citation figures, listed in a Google Scholar printout submitted by the 
petitioner, identified 31 of his publications, listing publication dates for 27 of them: 
Year Articles Total A vg. citations Avg. citations 
published citations per article in the field 
2006 1 0 0 19.11 
2007 2 9 4.5 16.57 
2008 3 21 7 13.38 
2009 2 15 7.5 10.08 
2010 4 21 5.25 6.72 
2011 7 13 1.86 3.65 
2012 8 2 0.26 1.09 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
When taking into account all of the petitioner's published work, rather than his single most 
successful article, the figures provided by the petitioner show that the average citation rate of his 
published work is lower than the average citation rate of all articles published in the field of 
pharmacology (the field in which he sought to make the comparison). It is also significant that the 
petitioner wrote his most-cited paper while he was a graduate student studying toxicology; it 
predates his medical training as a pathologist, and therefore is not an indication of his impact and 
influence in the field of pathology. 
The petitioner submitted data showing the number of page views for some of his online papers, but 
he did not provide evidence to give context to the numbers or allow comparison with the work of 
others in his field. 
The petitioner's response also included the claim that 
"[t]he importance of [his] original findings has 
also been recognized through invitation for peer-review, editorial board membership, pending 
patents, and invitation for conference presentations." The petitioner did not submit any evidence 
that identified him as a member of any editorial board, or any evidence that the claimed editorial 
board membership in question involved duties beyond peer review. 
The petitioner referred to "pending patents," but the record documents only one pending patent 
application. An approved patent is not automatic evidence of eligibility for the waiver. See 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221 n.7. The petitioner's documentation is even less persuasive, because the 
petitioner did not claim that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) approved the patent. The 
petitioner referred to the application, filed on July 5, 2007, as "pending," but submitted no evidence to 
show that the USPTO was still actively considering the application six and a half years later when the 
petitioner responded to the RFE. 
Regarding the invitations to make conference presentations, the petitioner has not established that these 
invitations are a hallmark of existing influence on the field. 
The petitioner submitted three further letters, each of which discussed statistical evidence such as the 
materials described above. Like the writers of the earlier letters, these writers combined general 
praise of the petitioner with details about specific examples of the petitioner's work. Dr. 
director of urologic pathology at stated that the petitioner "has recently 
conducted a valuable review of the state of prostate cancer diagnosis technology and methodology . 
. . . Specifically, he has authored a book chapter in [a] recently published volume of 
is a bimonthly journal, not a book. The petitioner's paper in that 
publication is a literature review, compiling previously published information rather than reporting 
new, original research. 
Dr. , associate professor at the . ) praised the petitioner's "impressive record 
of publication in the field of toxicology" and called him "a highly influential toxicology researcher," 
although the petitioner's work after 2009 has not been in the field of toxicology. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Dr. , associate professor of biochemical engineering at _ 
, stated: "I am particularly familiar with [the petitioner's] work on 
the development of a new and effective option for treating bacterial infections associated with 
_ _ . . . [H]is research on · has 
been an important reference point for my own work." Dr. indicated that he had cited the 
petitioner's work in two of his own recent articles, and asserted that the petitioner "is on a trajectory 
to quickly accumulate an impressive citation record" - an indication that the petitioner does not 
already have such a record, but shows the potential to do so in the future. 
The petitioner submitted copies of the job offer letters for his then-current position and the one that 
followed it. Dr. director of surgical pathology the 
______ described the petitioner's duties there: 
[Y]ou will be responsible for intraoperative consultations and direct interaction with 
the surgeons and operating rooms. You will be asked to provide first line instruction 
to residents in gross pathology and the handling of tissue .... 
[Y]ou will review cases and construct reports with the assigned residents. 
Dr. _ hematopathology fellowship program director at the stated that the 
"fellowship comprises one year of clinical rotations and a second year mainly focused on 
research and scholarly activities." 
The director denied the petition on March 5, 2014, stating that the petitioner has not demonstrated 
the national scope of his work because (1) the writers of the letters represent only a small geographic 
area of the United States, and (2) the petitioner's then-current job duties focused on clinical practice 
and instructional duties. The director also concluded that the petitioner had not established his 
influence on the field. 
On appeal, the petitioner, via the appellate brief, contests the director's finding regarding national 
scope. While clinical patient care and instructional duties do not produce benefits that are national 
in scope, the record shows that the petitioner continues to conduct research and to disseminate his 
findings through · presentation and publication. The record supports these assertions, and therefore 
we withdraw the director's finding that the benefit from the petitioner's work lacks national scope. 
There remains the third prong of the NYSDOT national interest test. The petitioner submits a copy of 
an article from stating that "citations are considered as a measure of the impact a 
publication has on science" and that the "number of publications and citations ... have become the 
most important tools for evaluating individual researchers quantitatively." As previously 
demonstrated, the petitioner's own evidence indicates that his overall citation rate is below average. 
The occasional individual article with above-average citation does not establish a consistent pattern 
of influence in the past or likely to occur in the future. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The petitioner has established a diverse publication history, and letters in the record demonstrate 
some amount of interest in the petitioner's work. The objective documentation in the record, 
however, fails to substantiate claims that the petitioner (to date, still a trainee at the J is already 
an influential figure in his field. There is a discrepancy between the third-party letters and the 
documentary evidence with respect to the significance of the petitioner's work and the notice it has 
attracted; the letters contain claims that the record fails to corroborate. In other instances, the letters 
refer to the petitioner's future potential rather than his existing impact on his field. The writers did 
not identify procedures or practices that the field has widely adopted as a result of the petitioner's 
efforts. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
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. users 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 r&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BrA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
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 r&N Dec. 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
field of endeavor." !d. 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. 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. 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 of Otiende, 26 r&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.