dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pediatric Cardiology

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 0 6 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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 is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
,ftff 
t;.Ron /!:berg 
U Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDECI~ON 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter 
is now before us on motions to reopen and reconsider. We will grant the motion to reopen, dismiss 
the motion to reconsider, and affirm the denial of the petition. 
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 is a pediatric cardiology fellow at 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. We dismissed the petitioner's 
appeal on November 4, 2014. A fuller discussion of the underlying issues appears in our appellate 
decision. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. The petitioner requests that we 
reopen and reconsider the matter, and approve the petition. On March 31, 2015, we requested further 
evidence demonstrating the impact of the petitioner's work in his field. The petitioner responded by 
submitting additional letters of support and further documentation of his qualifications and activities 
in the field. For the reasons discussed below, the record does not establish that an exemption from 
the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. Accordingly, we 
will affirm our appellate decision and 
uphold the denial of the petition. 
I. LAW 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The record reflects 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." In reNew York State Dept 
ofTransportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT), set forth several 
factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, a 
petitioner must establish that he 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. Id Finally, the 
petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that he 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. 
Although the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national . benefit, the petitioner must 
establish his past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's subjective assurance that he 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 petitioner, rather than to facilitate the entry of an individual with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. Id 
Furthermore, eligibility for the waiver must rest with the petitioner's own qualifications rather than 
with the position sought. Assertions regarding the overall importance of a petitioner's area of 
expertise cannot suffice to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. !d. at 220. At issue is 
whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such significance that he merits the special 
benefit of a national interest waiver, a benefit separate and distinct from the visa classification he 
seeks. A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence 
on the field as a whole. !d. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, original 
innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific· 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. !d. at 221, n. 7. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The petitioner filed the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140), on August 15, 2013. The 
petitioner has already established the intrinsic merit and national scope of his research in pediatric 
cardiology and, therefore, he satisfies the first two NYSDOT factors. The remaining issue is whether 
the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an available U.S. worker with 
the same minimum qualifications. Our appellate decision upheld the director's determination that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 4 
petitioner's impact and influence on his field did not satisfy the third prong of the NYSDOT national 
interest analysis. 
According to 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 
On motion and in response to our Request for Evidence (RFE), the petitioner submitted his updated 
curriculum vitae, additional letters of support, further documentation of his published and presented 
work, and two Google Scholar citation reports (20 14 and 20 15) for his published articles. With regard 
to the petitioner's published and presented work, there is no presumption that every published article 
or conference presentation demonstrates influence on the field as a whole; rather, the petitioner must 
document the actual impact of his article or presentation. Frequent and favorable independent 
citation of an article authored by the petitioner may indicate that other researchers are familiar with 
his work and have been influenced by it. A less extensive citation record, on the other hand, is 
generally not probative of the petitioner's impact in the field. 
The petitioner's most recent citation report from Google Scholar reflects that: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
The submitted citation reports from Google Scholar do not indicate how many of the preceding 
citations are self-citations by the petitioner or his coauthors. Self-citation is a normal, expected 
practice. Self-citation cannot, however, demonstrate the response of independent researchers. The 
petitioner has not established that the number of independent cites per article for his published work 
is indicative of influence on the field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted a December 2014 letter from Dr. a clinical professor of 
pediatrics at asserting that the petitioner has served as Principal Investigator in a number of 
important research projects including: 
• A major multi-center study entitled ' 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
• 
• 
On March 31, 2015, we requested that the petitioner submit documentary evidence from the funding 
organizations for the above research projects showing the purpose, form, amount, dates of funding, 
the named recipients, and the process by which such funding was obtained. The petitioner's 
response to our RFE, however, did not include the requested documentation. 
With regard to the petitioner's study entitled ' 
Dr. states: 
Preliminary results from this study have been submitted to be presented at the next 
annual conference and the findings are 
significant. It is found that cardiac catheterization improves patients' exercise capacity and 
reduces breathlessness. Once the results are final and published, his work would cause 
treatment practices across the nation to change. 
" 
Dr. asserts that the petitioner's work, once published, "would cause treatment practices 
across the nation to change," but there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner's findings have already had such a national effect. Eligibility must be established at the 
time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Cornm'r 
1971). Dr. expectation regarding the possible future impact of the petitioner's work is not 
evidence of the petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. In response to our RFE, the petitioner 
submitted conference materials from the : annual meeting reflecting that he presented the 
results ofthe study in more than twenty months after the Form 1-140 petition was filed. 
Dr. further states that the petitioner has "made significant contributions to surgical repair 
methods for two separate commonly-occurring congenital bean defects, and the 
" While Dr. goes on to discuss the potential of the 
petitioner's and studies, he does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's 
fmdings have already influenced surgical practices in the United States or have otherwise affected 
the field as a whole. 
Dr. continues: 
[The petitioner] is also a principal investigator for a research project looking at reducing 
radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization procedure to close . The 
results of this study have been accepted for publication in the journal 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
They show that reducing fluoroscopy frame rate to 4 fps (frames per second) significantly 
reduces radiation exposure in children without increasing procedure time/complications. 
Once published the results are sure to bring about a change in the interventional cardiology 
community to reduce default x-ray machine fluoroscopy rates for such procedures (from a 
standard rate of 7. 5 fps or 15 fps) to 4 fps and hence decrease unnecessary radiation exposure 
in children. 
Again, Dr. asserts that the petitioner's results, once published, "are sure to bring about a 
change in the interventional cardiology community to reduce default x-ray machine fluoroscopy 
rates," but there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's findings had already 
achieved that effect at the time of filing on August 15, 2013. As mentioned previously, eligibility 
must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. at 49. In response to our RFE, the petitioner submitted the aforementioned article in 
We note, however, that the article was not published until January 2015, seventeen 
months after the Form 1-140 petition was filed. 
Dr. further states: 
[The petitioner] made an important contribution to pediatric cardiology while at the 
Postgraduate in his native India. This project 
examined extubation, or the removal of infants from ventilators. In his study, [the petitioner] 
discovered two risk factors for extubation failure - anemia and the congenital heart condition 
called 1. He further found that correcting hemoglobin levels 
prior to extubation improved outcomes. This work led. directly to a change in treatment 
practices in the hospital where the [the petitioner] conducted his study; further, the results 
were disseminated through publication and presentations and medical conferences. 
Dr. mentions that the petitioner's "work led directly to a change in treatment practices in the 
hospital where the [the petitioner] conducted his study," but did not indicate that the petitioner's 
work, once disseminated , led to procedural changes at other hospitals. There is no documentary 
evidence showing that the petitioner's published and presented work has been frequently cited by 
independent researchers or has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Dr. a professor of pediatrics at 
stating: "As part of his continued training [the petitioner] has participated in 470 cardiac 
catheterizations in children and adults with congenital heart disease. This includes 210 cardiac 
catheterizations since July 2014." In addition, Dr. asserts that the petitioner "is proficient and 
clinically competent in all aspects of diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization" and then 
lists seventeen medical procedures in which the petitioner is skilled. Any assertion that the 
petitioner possesses useful skills, or a "unique background" relates to whether similarly-trained 
workers are available in the United States and is an issue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
Department of Labor through the labor certification process. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. Dr. 
does not explain how the petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The petitioner also submitted an April 2015 letter from Dr. 
Development Coordinator, stating: 
[The petitioner] recently published his research on radiation exposure during 
device closure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. His article is titled 
" and was published in the journal of 
[The petitioner] showed from his research that by reducing the x-ray fluoroscopy frame rate 
during this procedure, the procedure could be performed with similar efficacy but with less 
radiation exposure to children. . . . [M)ost catheterization laboratories around the world still 
use high frame rates in the range of 1 0 to 15 frames per second. [The petitioner] showed that 
this can be safely reduced to as low as 4 frames per second. . . . Based on [the petitioner's] 
peer-reviewed and published data, I have personally lowered fluoroscopy rates during cardiac 
catheterization procedures at and at the 6 major sites 
around the world where I work to 4 frames per second. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an April 2015 letter from Dr. an Assistant 
Professor of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine at the 
. Dr. also comments on the petitioner's recent article in 
stating: 
[The petitioner] showed from his research that by reducing the x-ray fluoroscopy frame rate 
during this procedure, the procedure could be performed with similar efficacy but with less 
radiation exposure to children. Most catheterization laboratories in the country still use high 
frame rates in the range of 7. 5 to 15 frames per second. [The petitioner] showed that this can 
be safely reduced to as low as 4 frames per second. We have already taken several measures 
to reduce radiation exposure in the cath lab and we plan to change the default fluoroscopy 
rate in our catheterization lab to 4 fps. 
The identical sentences in Dr. and Dr. letters suggest the language in at least one of 
the letters was not written independently. While it is acknowledged that Dr. and Dr. 
have provided their support to this petition, it is unclear whether the letters reflect their independent 
observations and thus an informed and unbiased opinon ofthe petitioner's work. In evaluating the 
evidence, the truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). In addition, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted 
as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 
1988). However , USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an 
alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. Based on the identical sentences in Dr. and Dr. 
letters, USCIS may accord them less weight. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Regardless, neither of their letters demonstrates that the petitioner's findings in 
had influenced the field at the time of filing. As mentioned previously, the petitioner's article in 
was not published until January 2015, seventeen months after the Form I-140 
petition was filed. Therefore, any resulting impact on the medical institutions with which Dr. 
and Dr. are affiliated post-dates the filing of the petition. Again, eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. 
The petitioner also submitted e-mails from 2014 and 2015 reflecting that he was requested to peer 
review four manuscripts for and " 
One of the e-mails thanks the petitioner "for agreeing to review" a 
manuscript, but there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner actually completed any of 
the four reviews. Regardless, all of the peer review requests post-date the filing of the petition. As 
mentioned previously, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Furthermore, there is no evidence demonstrating that 
the petitioner's occasional participation in the widespread peer review process is an indication that he 
will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker 
having the same minimum qualifications. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted his licenses and professional certifications, a January 2015 job offer 
letter from the reflecting that the petitioner commanded a salary of 
$210,000.00, compensation data for medical school faculty positions compiled by the Association of 
Administrators in Academic Pediatrics, his professional association memberships, and a 2015 
"Best of the Best" abstract award in the '' " of the 
Annual Meeting. Many of these occupational qualifications and 
professional accomplishments post-date the filing ofthe Form I-140 petition. Again, eligibility must 
be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 
49. Furthermore, licenses and professional certifications, salary information, and recognition for 
achievements are elements that can contribute toward a finding of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D), (E), and (F), respectively. However, in this instance the petitioner is seeking a 
waiver of the job offer as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
We note 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. Pursuant to 
section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job 
offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218, 222. Therefore, whether a given individual seeks classification as an 
alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that 
individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered in his field of expertise. The national interest waiver is an additional 
benefit, separate from the classification sought, and therefore eligibility for the underlying 
classification does not demonstrate eligibility for the additional benefit of the waiver. Without 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
evidence showing that the petitioner's pediatric cardiology work has affected the field as a whole, 
we cannot conclude that he has demonstrated eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
Particularly significant awards may serve as evidence of the petitioner's impact and influence on his 
field, but the petitioner has not demonstrated that his 2015 "Best of the Best" abstract award 
has significance throughout the field as a whole, not just within the confines of the 
Annual Meeting. Regardless, the petitioner received the award more than 
twenty months after filing the Form I-140 petition. Again, eligibility must be established at the time 
of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly, we 
cannot consider an award received by the petitioner after August 15, 2013, as evidence to establish 
his eligibility at the time of filing. 
With respect to the petitioner's motion to reopen, the new facts and supporting documentary evidence 
offered on motion are not sufficient to overcome the grounds underlying our previous findings. 
In support of the motion to reconsider, the petitioner quotes from a letter previously submitted by Dr. 
an associate clinical professor of pediatric cardiology at Dr. 
commented on a project in which the petitioner studied "premature extubation (that is, removal of 
infants from ventilators." Dr. asserted that the petitioner's research "led to practice 
changes and health care savings by revising treatment protocols in the extubation ... of newborns 
who are unable to breath on their own, in order to avoid post-extubation complications." Dr. 
further stated that the petitioner's "research led to change of practice in the neonatal 
intensive care unit where the study was conducted, and has been published and presented at 
scientific _conferences." She did not indicate that the petitioner's work, once disseminated, had led to 
procedural changes at any other hospitals. 
In addition, the petitioner quotes from letters previously submitted by Dr. an 
associate professor at Dr. a staff pediatric 
cardiologist at the ; and Dr. an associate 
professor at Dr. Dr. and Dr. indicated that 
the petitioner's work has been published in 
medical journals and presented at scientific conferences. 
With regard to the petitioner's published and presented work, there is no documentary evidence 
showing that the petitioner's findings have been frequently cited by independent researchers or have 
otherwise affected the field as a whole. Although the petitioner's cardiology research may have 
value, any research must be original and likely to present some benefit if it is to receive funding and 
attention from the medical or scientific community. In order for a university, publisher or grantor to 
accept any research for graduation, publication or funding, the research must offer new and useful 
information to the pool of knowledge. Not every scientist who performs original research that adds 
to the general pool of knowledge in the field inherently serves the national interest to an extent that 
is sufficient to waive the job offer requirement. 
The petitioner compares the documentary evidence of his accomplishments to that of the plaintiff in 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Kazarian, however, involved a different 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
immigrant visa classification than the one the petitioner seeks in the present matter. Specifically, 
Kazarian involved an individual seeking classification as an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant 
to section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). In Kazarian, the court set forth a two­
part review where the evidence is first counted and then, if satisfying the required number of criteria, 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. The court in Kazarian upheld the AAO's 
determination that the plaintiff had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F .R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), which requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at 
least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The petitioner mentions the concurring opinion of Justice 
Pregerson who stated: "Although ... Dr. Kazarian did not submit three of the types of evidence 
required for the 'extraordinary visa,' he would have been an excellent candidate for an 'exceptional 
ability' visa." Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1123. As previously mentioned, exceptional ability, defined at 
8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2) as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a 
given field, does not demonstrate eligibility for the additional benefit of the national interest waiver. 
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. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 218, 222. While Justice Pregerson indicated that the plaintiff in Kazarian "would have been an 
excellent candidate for an 'exceptional ability' visa," he did not specifically comment about the 
plaintiffs eligibility for the national interest waiver pursuant to section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 
Accordingly, the accomplishments of the plaintiff in Kazarian do constitute proper bases for 
comparison with regard to the petitioner's national interest waiver determination. 
The petitioner also mentions a November 20, 2014, memorandum from Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to Leon Rodriguez, Director of USCIS, entitled "Policies 
Supporting U.S. High-Skilled Businesses and Workers." With respect to the national interest waiver, 
the memorandum states: "This waiver is underutilized and there is limited guidance with respect to its 
invocation. I hereby direct USCIS to issue guidance or regulations to clarify the standard by which a 
national interest waiver can be granted, with the aim of promoting its greater use for the benefit of the 
U.S. economy." The petitioner requests that USCIS' decision "be reconsidered in light of this 
directive," as the petitioner's work "helps to bring about lower health care costs." USCIS, however, has 
not yet issued any new guidance or regulations clarifying the national interest waiver eligibility 
standards in response to the Secretary's memorandum, and the memorandum does not itself set forth 
any specific guidance. A concern about underutilization of the national interest waiver benefit in 
general is not indicative that any particular decision USCIS has previously issued constituted an error of 
law or policy. The existing NYSDOT guidelines require the petitioner to establish that he will serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same 
minimum qualifications, and the petitioner has not done so in this matter. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 217-18. With regard to following the guidelines set forth in NYSDOT, USCIS, by law, does not 
have the discretion to ignore binding precedent. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Regardless, the record 
does not include any documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's research work has helped to 
bring about lower health care costs such that it has had a national effect. 
The petitioner does not support the motion to reconsider with any pertinent precedent decisions or 
legal citations that demonstrate our latest decision was based on an incorrect application of law, 
existing and currently binding precedent, or clearly articulated USCIS policy. In addition, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
motion does not establish that our appellate decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at 
the time of the decision. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the 
petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole or that he will otherwise serve the national 
interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum 
qualifications. 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced degree 
professional or alien of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based 
on national interest. The petitioner has not shown that his past record of achievement is at a level 
sufficient to waive the job offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa 
classification sought by the petitioner. Although the petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the 
scale of national acclaim, the petitioner must have "a past history of demonstrable achievement with 
some degree of influence on the field as a whole." NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n. 6. 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. 
Although the new evidence submitted by the petitioner provided a basis for granting the motion to 
reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), the submitted documentation does not overcome the grounds 
underlying our previous decision. Furthermore, as the petitioner's motion to reconsider 
is not supported 
by any pertinent precedent decisions or legal citations that demonstrate our latest decision was based on 
an incorrect application of law, existing and currently binding precedent, or clearly articulated 
USCIS .policy, the motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
We will affirm our prior decision 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 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed, the motion to reopen is granted, our decision of 
November 4, 2014, is affirmed, and the petition remains denied.