dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Pediatric Nephrology

(b)(6)
- - - - - - - --- --,.---
DATE: MAR 2 7 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship 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. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.usds.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 the AAO on appeal. The AAO 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 pediatric nephrologist. At the time she filed the petition, the 
petitioner was a fellow at the ---·-- ___ ~- , affiliated with the . .__. 
~ . The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the reqmrement ot 
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. 
In this decision, the term "prior counsel" shall refer to , who represented the petitioner at 
the time the petitioner filed the petition. The term "counsel " shall refer to the present attorney of 
record. 
On appeal , the petitioner submits a brief from counsel and supporting 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, 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. 
(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, 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. 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 record justifies 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 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 December 7, 2012. In an 
accompanying statement, prior counsel stated: 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The petitioner] is a highly specialized physician and researcher in the field of Pediatric 
Nephrology .... 
[The petitioner's] work fosters the development of new approaches into the causes , 
diagnosis, treatment , and prevention of pediatric renal diseases and disorders. Her 
research has demonstr ated new methods of diagnosing kidney disease, including the 
identification of predictors of renal outcome in youth with systemic lupus 
erythematosus (SLE), analysis of renal biopsy techniques, and her unique analysis of 
the relationship between Nephrology and other medical issues in fields such as 
Cardiology, Neurology /Psychology, Rheumatology, and Vascular Disease .... 
[The petitioner) is credited with several original scientific and medical research 
contributions .... She is cited by experts as a creative, enthusiastic, and prolific 
researcher, known for her initiatives for undertaking research to advance the field and 
for the benefit of her patients. 
The petitioner submitted documentation to establish the intrinsic merit and national scope of pediatric 
nephrology research. The petitioner also established the intrinsic merit of the clinical practice of 
pediatric nephrology, but did not establish the national scope of clinical practice; those who benefit 
directly from one physician's clinical practice are the necessarily limited number of patients whom that 
one physician directly treats. 
Prior counsel cited six exhibits as "[e]vidence that [the petitioner 's] research and clinical practice are 
national in scope." Three of the exhibits related to the petitioner's research work. A fourth exhibit 
pertained to the petitioner's peer review work "on behalf of an internationally circulated academic 
journal ," which again relates to research rather than clinical practice. Of the two remaining exhibits, 
one concerns the petitioner 's membership in "distinguished national professional organizations in her 
field." Prior counsel did not explain how these memberships give national scope to the petitioner's 
clinical work. The national reach of an organization does not lend national scope to the work of 
individual members of that organization. The last exhibit concerns a particular interdepartmental 
program at ( Neither the petitioner nor any witness a ' indicated that the petitioner would 
remain at after she completed her fellowship (which is an advanced stage of medical training 
rather than a career position), and users records show that the petitioner left less than a year 
after she filed the petition. The petitioner held H-lB nonimmigrant status permitting her to work at 
during her fellowship training; she did not require permanent immigration benefits in order to 
complete that training. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that she has, in prior counsel's words, "consistently received 
meritorious academic recognition and awards in her field." Such awards can support a claim of 
exceptional ability under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(F), but exceptional ability , defined at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2) as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a 
given field, does not establish eligibility for the waiver. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act specifies that 
aliens of exceptional ability are typically subject to the job offer requirement. Furthermore, the 
petitioner received most of the awards as a student ; the earliest ones are from when she was in high 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
school , before she had any medical training. Some of the claimed awards are high scores on college 
entrance examinations. Whatever the petitioner ' s academic success, academic performance cannot 
alone satisfy the national interest threshold or assure substantial prospective national benefit. NYSDOT 
at 219 n.6. 
Copies of conference presentation materials and manuscripts and proofs of materials written for 
publication establish that the petitioner has been a productive researcher, but these exhibits are not 
evidence of their own impact or influence. 
Several witness letters accompanied the initial filing of the petition. Two of the witnesses are on the 
faculty of .. -·---- __ __ . where the 
petitioner served a residency in pediatrics from 2007 to 2010. stated that the 
petitioner "emerged as a subject matter expert and leader among medical students and her fellow 
residents," which does not establi sh impact and influence beyond trainees at one hospital. l 
----' 
asserts that the petitioner: 
was recognized by the medical field at large ... for her leading knowledge in Pediatric 
Nephrology when she was asked to draft two chapters in the widely used reference 
book,_ .. - · · · - - -~-~ - , )
1
h Edition , edited by . This is 
a reference designed for quick consultation on problems seen in infants, children, and 
adolescents. 
The record does not show that the petitioner 's involvement in . resulted 
from recognition "by the medical field at large." The petitioner submitted proof copies of her entries 
in the book, as well as a printout from the web site of an unidentified book seller in the United 
Kingdom (the book's price is listed in pounds). The seller's description of the book indicates that 
"[m]ore than 450 diseases and conditions are covered in [a] fast-access two-page outline format." The 
petitioner's entries match this description , providing two-page overviews of specific conditions 
designed not to impart new research findings, but rather to assist clinicians in diagnosing the 
conditions. 
assistant professor at and attending staff member at 
1 -~-· · discussed the petitioner's "research on congenital hemi disease mid 
obesity, which she conducted <;~-t the 1...._ stated that the 
petitioner's "research has been well received in the field" after several conference presentations in 
2009. The record does not show that the petitioner continues to perform research in that area, or that 
her earlier work that 1 ~......- described continues to influence others' ongoing research . 
• ~ ""' ' K director of the Fellowship Training Program at stated: "Research is a 
substantial component of the Fellows are responsible for 
conception and completion of an independent research project(s) and submission of first-authored 
presentation(s) related to the research, leading to eligibility to sit for the . 
Subspecialty Board Examination." This assertion does not indicate that research separates the 
petitioner from other pediatric nephrologists. Rather, it indicates that research is a mandatory 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
component of training in the specialty. Further, it does not establish that the petitioner would continue 
to perform research after sitting for the board examination. 
claimed that the petitioner's "clinical practice in Pediatric Nephrology at is 
recognized nationally, and attracts patients from across the United States. Since 2010, [the petitioner] 
has worked with patients from 22 states and tenitories" as far away as California. The record includes 
no evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, assuming wide geographical distribution of patients, 
the record does not show that these patients traveled to Philadelphia specifically because of the 
petitioner, rather than the overall reputation of program . 
discussed the petitioner's involvement in "six ongoing research studies in the Division of 
Nephrology a1 " as well as three earlier research projects. None of the three earlier projects 
appears to have concerned nephrology. Because participation in research is a fundamental requirement 
of fellowship training at , the petitioner 's involvement does not inherently distinguish her in her 
field. identified conferences where the petitioner had made presentations relating to this 
research, and stated that manuscripts for journal articles were in various stages of preparation, but he 
did not show that the petitioner 's research at • had yielded any articles published prior to the 
petition's filing date. The "Publications" section of the petitioner's own curriculum vitae listed seven 
manuscripts in preparation or under review, but no articles already in print. 
stated: 
[The petitioner] has achieved much more than other minimally qualified physicians 
who have received basic medical training .... Of particular note and interest , [the 
petitioner] has gained significant interdisciplinary clinical skills through her clinical 
work in the~ ~ ~ . - ,--- r - ' -~~--. And she 
has demonstrated exceptional talent at linking Pediatric Nephrology to other medical 
areas, through her interdisciplinary clinical research. This truly sets her apart from 
other physicians or researchers who have function only within a narrow medical field. 
- -- · described the 
goals of the project but not the outcome. She did not claim that the project had yet resulted in any 
published or presented work, or that the results of the project had influenced the field. A collaborator's 
opinion of the importance of the study does not establish its wider impact. 
~ ____ ~ ~ -- ~- -~ ~--,stated that the petitioner "is 
actively engaged in innovative research in l and is making important original 
contributions to the field." J described various projects, and describes benefits that could 
potentially arise in the future as a result of those projects. Discussion of future impact in this way is 
necessarily speculative, and J , dis not balance this speculation with evidence of proven 
impact from the petitioner's earlier work. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The petitioner] and I are Co-Investigators of a study ... which aims to explore the 
impact of and characterize the changes to the brain experienced by individuals with 
CKD [chronic kidney disease]. Through her work on this study, [the petitioner] is on 
the leading edge of research in the field of Pediatric Nephrology. 
. did not specify the petitioner's role in the project , which relies on "state of the art 
neuroimaging 
technology " more aligned with Prof. Hooper's specialty than with that of the petitioner. 
·also collaborated with the petitioner "to write a manuscript which is an extensive review 
of 3 5 years of scientific literature on neuroimaging in CKD patients, both adults and children ." When 
wrote his letter, the manuscript was awaiting peer review. 
stated: 
I have been fortunate to collaborate with [the petitioner] on a major U.S.-based cohort 
study of Systematic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) . ... Our long-term goal is to identify 
predictors of disease activity and damage in pediatric lupus .... 
The advances [the petitioner] makes in our understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of 
devastating childhood diseases such as lupus will reach a wide audience through her 
publications and conference presentations , and will be implemented and built upon by 
physicians and researchers all over the country and the world. 
The record does not establish the extent, if any, to which other physicians and researchers have already 
implemented and built upon the petitioner 's research work. 
stated: 
"[The petitioner], with a strong record of outstanding research achievements and clinic al practice, 
offers qualifications well beyond those of a minimally trained physician .... [The petitioner] is one of 
the few Pediatric Nephrology fellows nationally to have such exceptional training and research 
initiative." · did not elaborate on this claim. 
The director issued a request for evidence on February 6, 2013. The director stated : "The petitioner 
must establish that the benefici ary has a past record of specific prior achievement with some degree of 
influence on the field as a whole." 
In response, prior counsel stated that the exhibits submitted with the initial filing established that the 
petitioner is an influential researcher who "crosses medical practice areas, leading the field of Pediatric 
Nephrology to address the whole patient in an integrated approach." Prior counsel stated that the 
petitioner "has published two abstracts, for which she is the first authot, in Blood Purification." Prior 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
counsel added: "the 
r4search/peer-review/publication cycle takes too long for citations to these studies 
to have been published yet." 
J published both of the newly mentioned abstracts in 2013, after the petition's filing 
date. An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the 
time of filing the benefit request. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). USCIS cannot properly approve the petition 
at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter 
ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec . 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). In this instance, the publication of abstracts 
after the petition's filing date cannot retroactively establish the petitioner's influence on the field as of 
the filing date. 
Prior counsel listed new and upcoming conference presentations by the petitioner. Like the two 
abstracts in ~ __... these contributions reached the field after the petition's filing date. 
They demonstrate that the petitioner remained active as a researcher,. but cannot retroactively establish 
that the petitioner was already eligible for the waiver before the materials existed. 
Regarding the claim that citations to the petitioner's work have not had time to appear, this assertion 
does not relieve the petitioner of her burden of proof. Rather, it acknowledges that it is too soon to say 
whether or not the new articles will influence the field. The record contains no evidence that 
independent researchers had already cited the petitioner's work in articles that were still pending 
publication, and therefore the assertion that citations will eventually appear amounts to speculation. 
Prior counsel stated: "a labor certification would be inappropriate for the profession of Pediatric 
Nephrologist because there is an extreme nationwide 
shortage of Pediatric Nephrologists in the United 
States. We can conclude, therefore, that there is full employment for minimally qualified American 
workers in the field. " , The labor 
certification process is in place to address such shortages. NYSDOT at 
218. ~ I 
' 
tated: 
It is without doubt that [the petitioner 's] research and clinical practice .. . make 
valuable and significant improvements to the national health. It is further without 
doubt that [the petitioner's] qualifications and accomplishments far exceed those of any 
minimally qualified physician, who might potentially be identified in the labor 
certification process. 
did not elaborate on the above claims. Instead, having stated that those claims are 
"without doubt ," devoted the remainder of his letter to the assertion that there is a 
shortage of pediatric nephrologists. t asserted: "In Delaware, the state where [the 
petitioner] has been offered employment, there are currently only two ABP-certified pediatric 
nephrologists. " 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act made a shortage-based waiver available to certain physicians in 
designated shortage areas, but to qualify for that waiver, a physician must meet certain conditions 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
specified in the statute and in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.12. The petitioner does not claim to 
have met those conditions. The petitioner has not submitted the evidence necessary to qualify for a 
waiver based on a physician shortage, and NYSDOT does not otherwise permit shortage-based waivers. 
No blanket waiver exists for pediatric nephrologists. 
Furthermore, the petitioner worked in Pennsylvania and had no job offer in Delaware when she filed 
the petition. A local shortage of pediatric nephrologists in Delaware, therefore , would not establish 
eligibility as of the filing date even if there were no other impediment to approval of the waiver. 
Under the regulations lat 8 C.F.R. § 204.12(f), if a physician has an approved Form I-140 petition with 
a shortage-based national interest waiver, and that ph'ysician then moves to a different medically 
underserved area, the physician must file a new Form 1-140 petition with fee. 
Professo 
. / 41r _ _ IT 
, stated: 
duPont sincerely believes in the significant future benefit and influence [the petitioner] 
will have in Pediatric Nephrology. We also recognize how her training, research 
initiatives and accomplishment set her substantially apart from the majority of Pediatric 
Nephrologists. As evidence of these convictions, has created a new, permanent, 
position specifically for [the petitioner]. We were eager and thrilled to recruit such an 
extraordinarily gifted Pediatric Nephrologist to our team. 
~ asserted that the petitioner's training "exceeds the minimal clinical training offered by 
other programs ," and that the petitioner possesses "unique interdisciplinary experience" and 
"nationally recognized research experience" that "far exceed what a minimally qualified worker ... 
could offer." Possessing more than the minimum qualifications is not sufficient grounds for receiving 
the national interest waiver. By statute, even aliens of exceptional ability are typically subject to the 
job offer requirement. Labor certification is not limited to minimally qualified foreign workers. 
stated that the petitioner 's "nationally recognized research has influenced the field" 
but did not specifically elaborate on this point except to claim that the petitioner received invitations to 
perform peer review as a result of her "recognized expertise. " - • _ like prior counsel, 
pointed to newly published abstracts while asserting that this material was too new to have attracted 
any citations yet. 
praised the petitioner 's past research work, but did not specify that the new position 
that the hospital created for her would involve research duties. 
~- . . ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _, - -- · ~ ~· . stated that the petitioner 's two 2013 
abstracts published in "offer clear and significant examples of how her research 
reaches and impacts the field of Pediatric Nephrology as a whole." r · did not explain how 
these abstracts , published so recently that no citations exist, are evidence of the petitioner's impact on 
her field. offered her professional opinion of the significance of the abstracts, but her 
opinion does not demonstrate impact on the field as a whole, either before or after the filing date. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
stated that the petitioner's "research has impacted the field by clearly identifying areas in 
which specific diagnosis , treatment and prevention are needed and will be most effective." The record 
contains no objective evidence to show widespread adoption of the petitioner 's work at the clinical 
level, or discussion of her work among other researchers. Proposing a solution to a problem has the 
potential to influence the field, but the proposal itself is not evidence of its own impact. 
The director denied the petition on August 20, 2013. The director quoted from several witness letters, 
and stated: "The fact that the beneficiary is highly qualified for the job does not warrant a waiver of the 
job offer and labor certification requirement." The director found that a claimed shortage in the 
petitioner's specialty does not warrant a waiver under NYSDOT, and that the petitioner had not 
documented that her research has influenced the field as a whole. The director also found that clinical 
practice (as opposed to research) lacks national scope, and that the petitioner had not shown that her 
future duties would primarily involve research rather than clinical care. The director stated: "No 
evidence of citation of the petitioner 's research was submitted to establish tha:t others within the field 
are discussing or adopting the petitioner's findings. No independent evidence of the impact of the 
petitioner's research was submitted beyond referee letters." 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director made the "fatal error" of quoting only some of the witness 
letters. Counsel quotes from some of these letters on appeal, stating that they "specifically addressed 
the impact of [the petitioner's] impact [sic] on her field as a whole." This element of the appeal 
reinforces rather than rebuts the director's finding that the petitioner relied entirely on letters to 
establish the impact and influence of her past research work. 
Counsel contends thatthe letters, "given their quantity, substance and who the referees are- in and of 
themselves are sufficient to rebut the director's erroneous conclusion " regarding the petitioner 's impact 
on her field. 
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." !d. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit corroborative 
evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have received consideration 
above. 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 (Comrn'r 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien 's eligibility for 
the benefit sought. Jd. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. USCIS 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
purport to be evidence as to "fact") . See also Matter ofSoffici , 22 I&N Dec . 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'! Comm'r 1972)). 
The letters submitted in support of the petition attested to the petitioner 's claimed impact in the field 
but did not describe that impact. The petitioner also failed to submit corrobor ating evidence in 
existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the 
reference letters. 
Counsel quotes an unpublished, non-precedential AAO decision from 2009, regarding the value of 
independent witness letters. Counsel has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant 
petition are analogous 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 quoted appellate decision did not indicate that independent witness letters are of equal value: 
"Independent witness letters are another means to establish an alien's impact on his or her field. This 
not to say, of course, that every alien who manages to obtain independent witness letters is entitled to a 
national interest waiver." The same decision indicated th~t "consistency with the other evidence" 
affects the weight of witness letters. 
Counsel does not establish that any of the petitioner's witnesses are independent. Most of the 
witnesses have directly participated in the petitioner ' s training and/or have collaborated with her, and 
none of the witnesses · specifically claimed independent knowledge of the petitioner's work. Counsel 
has not supported the assertion that the number and/or identities of the witnesses lend their assertions 
the same evidentiary weight as independent documentation. The absence of verifiable documentation 
diminishes the weight and reliability of claims such as assertion that the petitioner is 
"a national leader in the field of Pediatric Nephrology." 
Counsel states that the director had "not even mentioned ... [the petitioner's] having presented 
original research papers . . . at national and international meetings and symposia." The director 
acknowledged that "the petitioner has conducted scholarly research. " The outcome of the decision 
would not have changed if the director had described the forums at which the petitioner had presented 
that research. 
The record shows that the petitioner trained at in a fellowship program that required fellows to 
conduct original research. Original research conducted under those conditions does not distinguish the 
petitioner from her peers, and the record does not show that is unique or distinguished in 
requiring fellows to conduct research in this way. 
Counsel states: "The finding that [the petitioner's] position is essentially one of only local benefit is 
absolutely in error and ignores a substantial part of the record. " Counsel repeats assertions regarding 
the national reputation of and states the petitioner "renders state-of-the-art clinical services to 
patients from throughout the United States" at The response to the request for evidence , 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
however, made it clear that the petitioner would leave 
training. 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
upon completion of her fellowship 
Counsel asserts that "extensive research" has a national impact, and that the director was 
"fundamentally wrong" to conclude that the petitioner will primarily work as a clinician rather than as 
a researcher. Counsel states that "the Director fundamentally misunderstands the nature of academic 
medicine where the research component and the clinical component ... go hand-in-hand." 
The record does not show that intends to employ the 
petitioner as a researcher or in an academic capacity, or that her clinical work has or will produce 
benefits that are national in scope (rather than benefiting individual patients). At the time of filing, the 
petitioner was not employed in a career "academic medicine" position . Rather , she was completing a 
fellowship, which is a required stage of medical training. The appeal includes some new exhibits, 
none of which establish that the petitioner continued to perform research after leaving in 2013. 
Counsel cites the economic costs incurred by kidney diseases , and stated that the petitioner's research 
work will produce "national economic benefit" by reducing these costs. Counsel cites figures from 
2009 regarding the national costs of kidney diseases and related disorders, but does not provide figure s 
showing that the petitioner's work has, so far, significantly reduced those costs. Ifthe ·petitioner's past 
work has not reduced these costs, then it is speculative to claim that "medical research, such as [the 
petitioner's] , may result in cost-saving procedures. " 
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 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. " !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 a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise , it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The AAO 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 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BlA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.