dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pediatric Endocrinology

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Admini strative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: 
APR 2 5 2014 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE : 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
,{;{ 0 t~dYl~G 
r 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative 
Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
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. 
According to Part 6 of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner seeks 
employment as a "Physician." At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as a physician 
specializing in pediatric endocrinology and metabolism 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from counsel. Counsel asserts "that clear evidence was 
submitted showing that [the petitioner] has made significant contributions to the field, that his [sic] 
work has impacted the national interest, especially his [sic] research work, and that he [sic] has 
distinguished himself [sic] from his [sic] peers, thereby justifying the waiver of labor certification." 
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 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. 
(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 repmt to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, P.L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990) (IMMACT90), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 
29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must 
make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benefit" [required of aliens seeking to 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 Dept 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 she 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 she 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. 
The petitioner has established that her work as a physician is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. 
With regard to the second prong of the national interest waiver test, the director found that the 
proposed benefits of the petitioner's work as a physician would not be national in scope. However, 
in addition to her duties as a physician, the petitioner performs pediatric endocrinology research that 
seeks to improve treatment methods for childhood diabetes. Improving treatment methods for 
childhood diabetes would substantially benefit the U.S. healthcare system. As the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner is sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed benefits of her pediatric 
endocrinology research are national in scope, the director's finding is withdrawn. It remains, then, 
to determine whether the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an 
available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
her past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that she 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. !d. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
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. NYSDOT at 220. At issue is · 
whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such significance that she merits the special 
benefit of a national interest waiver, a benefit separate and distinct from the visa classification she 
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. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140 petition on December 6, 2012. In support of the petition, the 
petitioner submitted academic records, letters verifying her employment experience, professional 
certifications, information regarding her salary, membership in professional associations, and awards 
recognizing her achievements. The preceding types of evidence are elements that can contribute 
toward a finding of exceptional ability. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) - (F), respectively. 
Exceptional ability, in tum, is not self-evident grounds for the waiver. See section 203(b)(2)(A) of 
the Act. 
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 8 C.P.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 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 her 
field of expertise. Particularly significant awards may serve as evidence of the petitioner's impact 
and influence on her field, but the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the awards she received 
(which are institutional in nature or limited to those in the training phase of their medical career) are 
indicative of her influence on the field as a whole. 
Counsel states that "the testimonials submitted from lead experts in the field document that [the 
petitioner] is very well-regarded nationally for both clinical and research work." Counsel points to 
the petitioner's medical presentations and creation of clinical protocols for managing Turner's 
Syndrome and adrenal insufficiency as evidence of her achievements in the field. 
In addition to documentation of her medical presentations, the petitioner submitted letters of support 
discussing her work. 
Dr. Endowed Chair and Director, 
School of Dental Medicine, and Adjunct Professor of 
Epidemiology, stated: "[The petitioner] is a leader in the field of pediatric 
endocrinology. Her research is published in internationally circulated journals and she is frequently 
invited to present her work at national and international conferences." Dr. asserts that the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
petitioner's "research is published in internationally circulated journals," but she fails to identify the 
specific journals. Further, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence of the journal 
publications that she authored. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Cal~fornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
With regard to the petitioner's presentations at medical conferences, many professional fields 
regularly hold meetings and conferences to present new work, discuss new findings, and to network 
with other professionals. These meetings and conferences are promoted and sponsored by 
professional associations, educational institutions, employers, and government agencies. Although 
presentation of the petitioner's work demonstrates that her research findings were shared with others 
and may be acknowledged as original based on their selection to be presented, there is no 
documentary evidence showing, for instance, that her presented work has resulted in medical 
advances that have been implemented at a number of hospitals, that her work has been frequently 
cited by independent researchers, or that her findings have otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
Dr. continued: 
[The petitioner] is cunently involved in multiple IRB [Institutional Review Board] approved 
clinical research projects. 
In "Effect of dietary counseling and behavior modification on lipid profiles and inflammatory 
mediators in preschool children with Type 1 Diabetes," [the petitioner] compared the 
macronutrient intake between children with type 1 diabetes and age-matched subjects 
without diabetes. 
* * * 
In her research, [the petitioner] also compared fasting lipid profiles in children with type 1 
diabetes and ace-matched children without diabetes. Notably, both hyperlipidemia and type 
1 diabetes increase an individual's risk for cardiovascular disease. This study also looks at 
whether to issue standard diabetes dietary education or intensive dietary/behavioral education 
over a six month period of time to children with diabetes. This is important because it 
defines whether an intervention incorporating both dietary and behavioral education leads to 
improvements in overall lipoprotein profiles in preschool children with type 1 diabetes. This 
extensive research is just one example of the many wide-reaching and impressive studies that 
[the petitioner] has undertaken. 
Dr. comments on the petitioner's diabetes research, but fails to provide specific examples 
of how the petitioner's findings are being implemented by others in the field or have otherwise affected 
the field as a whole. While the petitioner's research studies 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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 physician 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. 
Dr. further stated that "the U.S. scientific community faces a shmtage in the number of 
pediatnc endocrinologists who conduct research." The unavailability of qualified U.S. workers or 
the amelioration of local labor shortages, however, are not considerations in national interest waiver 
determinations because the alien employment certification process is already in place to address such 
shortages. NYSDOT at 218. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. 
is an issue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor through the alien employment 
certification process. /d. at 221. 
Dr. , Chair of Pediatrics at stated: 
Curr_entlv. rthe petitioner] is a specialist in pediatric endocrinology and metabolism at the 
Prior to this appointment, [the petitioner] was a 
pediatrician and instructor at the She has 
also held impressive posts at hospitals throughout England and India. 
At the [the petitioner] is regularly relied on to 
treat patients suffering from very rare endocrine diseases. These include disorders such as 
Turner Syndrome .... [The petitioner] is one of the unique few with advanced experience in 
the treatment of this condition. 
Dr. comments on the petitioner's hospital appointments and unique experience in treating 
Turner Syndrome. However, it cannot suffice to state that the petitioner possesses useful skills, or a 
"unique background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the 
national interest threshold. !d. at 221. 
Dr. continued: 
[The petitioner] is particularly acclaimed for the clinical protocol he [sic] developed in the 
management of Turners [sic] Syndrome. . . . Presently, there is no appropriate protocol to 
screen, diagnose and treat all the symptoms and signs of this syndrome; however [the 
petitioner] wrote clinical guidelines and made a protocol to manage this condition. The 
guidelines and protocol are in use in medical centers through-out the U.S. and Europe. 
[The petitioner] is also well known for her work on the management of adrenal insufficiency, 
which is caused by conditions such as congenital adrenal hypoplasia, adrenoleukodystrophy, 
Addison's disease, thrombosis, coagulopathy, HIV, tuberculosis, medications such as 
Etomidate, and cancer. The specific clinical protocol that she developed to manage adrenal 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
insufficiency is innovative and revolutionizing the way that patients with this condition are 
treated. 
Dr. asserts that the petitioner's guidelines and clinical protocols "are in use in medical 
centers through-out the U.S. and Europe" and are "revolutionizing the way that patients ... are 
treated." Dr. however, fails to specifically identify the other medical centers that are 
utilizing the petitioner's guidelines and protocols, and there is no documentary evidence to support 
her assertions regarding the impact of the petitioner's work. As previously stated, going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici at 165. In addition, USCIS need not accept primarily 
conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Dr. further stated: 
As one of the nation's most respected pediatric endocrinologists, prestigious organizations 
have recognized his [sic] work. She has held impressive employment posts. Further, [the 
nPt;t;rmr>rl is a member of prestigious professional societies, such as the 
Again, occupational experience and membership in professional associations are elements that relate 
to a finding of exceptional ability, but exceptional ability is not sufficient to establish eligibility for 
the national interest waiver. The plain language of section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act indicates that 
aliens of exceptional ability are subject to the job offer requirement (including employment 
certification). NYSDOT at 218, 222. There is no documentary evidence showing that the 
petitioner's employment experience and memberships are indicative of her influence on the field of 
pediatric endocrinology as a whole. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from Dr Chairman of Pediatrics at 
. _ The second through seventh paragraphs in Dr. 
letter are virtually identical in content to the second through seventh paragraphs in Dr. 
letter. The identical paragraphs in their letters suggest the language in at least one of the letters is 
not the author's own. Cf Surinder Singh v. Board of Immigration Appeals, 438 F.3d 145, 148 (2d 
Cir. 2006) (upholding an immigration judge's adverse credibility determination in asylum 
proceedings based in part on the similarity of some of the affidavits); Mei Chai Ye v. U.S. Dept. of 
Justice, 489 F.3d 517, 519 (2d Cir. 2007) (concluding that an immigration judge may reasonably 
infer that when an asylum applicant submits strikingly similar affidavits, the applicant is the 
common source). 
While it is acknowledged that Dr. and Dr. have provided their support to this petition, 
it appears that at least one of them did not independently prepare the full content of his or her letter. 
In evaluating the evidence, the tmth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
its quality. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). In addition, 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. Id. Based on the identical paragraphs Dr. and Dr. letters, USCIS may 
accord them less weight. Regardless, neither of their letters demonstrates that the petitioner's work 
has influenced the field as a whole. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
cases). The BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility , there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's references is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the 
petitioner's eligibility. See Matter of Caron International at 795-796; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 
I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence 
as to "fact"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the 
petitioner's reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, 
letters solicited by a petitioner in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than 
preexisting, independent evidence that one would expect of a pediatric endocrinologist who has 
influenced the field as a whole. 
The record establishes that the petitiOner is a capable physician who has made a favorable 
impression on her superiors. The intrinsic merit and national scope of her pediatric endocrinology 
research are not in dispute. Nevertheless, the evidence submitted does not show that the petitioner's 
work stands out from that of her peers. The petitioner has not submitted documentary evidence of 
any of her publications and the record does not show that the petitioner's work has come to the 
attention of other researchers outside of her own circle of colleagues, except those who may have 
attended certain medical conferences. Two witnesses have asserted that the petitioner's clinical 
guidelines and protocols are in use in a number of medical centers in the United States and 
internationally, but the record does not include documentary evidence to support their claims. 
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 her 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. While the petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the 
scale of national acclaim, the national interest waiver contemplates that her influence be national in 
scope. NYSDOT at 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole"). 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. 
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, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.