dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Psychiatry

Identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~led 
invasion of personal pnvac) 
PUBLlCCOPY 
INRE: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
FEB 0 3 2011 
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 in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
5YerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.c. § l1S3(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a psychiatrist. The documents . the· as a staff 
child and adolescent and 
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 statement from counsel. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. --
(A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or 
welfare of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an 
alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an 
employer in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver 
of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
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, IOlst Cong., 1st Sess., II (1989). 
Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS)] 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. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Commr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. 
First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. 
Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 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. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must clearly 
establish that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit'to the national interest. 
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 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. 
We also 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. 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. 
We note that the petitioner has, throughout the course of this proceeding, submitted thousands of pages 
of documentation. The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its 
quality. Matter of Chaw at he, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) citing Matter of E-M- 20 I&N Dec. 
77,80 (Commr. 1989). 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on April 1, 2009. In a statement submitted with the initial 
filing, counsel contended that the petitioner 
--Page 4 
should not be required to go through the labor certification process, because this process 
is not able to take into consideration the unique skills that he has developed as a 
psychiatrist, the tremendous national impact of the research work that is done, and the 
reputation that [he] has sustained amongst his peers nationally. 
Elsewhere in the same statement, counsel claimed that the petitioner 
is an outstanding psychiatrist at the top of his field with extraordinary abilities and 
talents which he has illustrated time and again through his significant work. 
Additionally, the support letters written on [the petitioner's] behalf show that [the 
petitioner] is one of the most talented psychiatrists in the field throughout the nation. 
We will consider the witness letters elsewhere in this decision. All of these assertions, and others in 
the record, contain claims of objective fact, for which the petitioner must provide impartial 
evidentiary support. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter 
of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. I, 3 n.2 
(BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
The petitioner submits copies of several published articles, book chapters, and book reviews that the 
petitioner wrote or co-wrote. Counsel states that the petitioner's "work has been cited numerous 
times by physician-scientists across the world." The petitioner submits a list of citing articles, 
claiming between one and six citations for five of his articles, for a total of 17 citations (an average 
of about three citations per article). The petitioner submitted copies of 13 of the 17 listed articles 
(three of which do not discernibly pertain to child psychiatry, and one of which is a self-citation by 
the petitioner's co-author), along with a copy of an article from Psychiatric News, reporting on a 
survey that the petitioner and nine other researchers conducted. The survey concerned parental leave 
policies for psychiatry residents, and as such it amounted to a report on personnel issues within the 
field rather than research in that field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his involvement in educational actlvltJes, including his 
preparation of electronic slide presentations and self-assessment questionnaires. We note this 
evidence, but it does not explain why it is in the national interest for the petitioner to be among those 
engaged in such activities. Educational work of this kind is not self-evident proof of eligibility for 
the waiver. 
The record contains several witness letters written in support of the petition in March 2009. _ 
v;o;t;n,a rf,searcher m 
petitioner's "critical roles at these prestigious institutions [i.e., 
__ is a testament to [the petitioner's] exceptional ability." 
petitioner's credentials as a peer reviewer, editor, author, member of associations, and "recipient of 
numerous honors and distinctions .... The impressive number of awards presented to [the petitioner] is 
a testament to his stature in the field." _ asserted that the petitioner's work has earned him 
Page 5 
"an international reputation within the medical community," but he did not discuss any details of the 
petitioner's clinical or research work that led to that claimed reputation. 
stated that the petitioner "is a member of a small 
nel~de:d fJJ"y'.l~""Il' as a is a member of an even smaller class of high 
demand specialists with expertise in treating pediatric populations suffering from mental illnesses and 
behavioral disorders." A shortage of qualified workers in a given field, regardless of the nature of the 
occupation, does not constitute grounds for a national interest waiver. Given that the labor certification 
process was designed to address the issue of worker shortages, a shortage of qualified workers is an 
argument for obtaining rather than waiving a labor certification. See Matter of New York State Dept. of 
Transportation at 215,218. There exists a statutory provision at section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for 
certain physicians when the Department of Health and Human Services has officially designated a 
shortage area, but the petitioner has made no attempt to follow the provisions set forth in that subsection 
of the Act, or to conform to the corresponding regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.12. 
Regarding the petitioner's individual merits, stated that the petitioner's "work is so 
outstanding that it has been cited numerous times by other scientists and has even received media 
attention." provided no details as to the number of citations or the extent or context of the 
"media attention." tated that the petitioner "has produced, and continues to produce, 
novel scientific work that is essential to the treatment and diagnosis of serious psychiatric disorders in 
adult and pediatric populations," but he did not provide any specific details about that work except to 
list some of the disorders that afflict the petitioner's patients, such as "ADHD, autism, bipolar disorder, 
depression, schizophrenia and other serious conditions." 
curriculum vitae, 
stated: "1 base my 
prc)te~:slonal accomp a revIew CV, publications, 
not state that he had collaborated with the petitioner, but his 
nel·lI1()nE,r.lists the two as co-authors of a 2008 book chapter. 
~alled the petitioner "one of the leading experts in the field of child and adolescent 
~ credited him with "innovative contributions ... in the treatruent areas of ADHD and 
major depressive disorder. For example, [the petitioner] has studied the efficacy and safety of non­
stimulant medications in ADHD, including atomoxetine in pre-school children, modafinil and extended 
release guanfacine in school-age children with ADHD." Noting the petitioner's authorship of textbook 
~ claimed, without proof or elaboration, that "only established experts in the field 
like [the petitioner] are asked to author book chapters." 
_ who is also president of the 
barely mentions the petitioner at 
from a , presentations, and publications." 
devotes the bulk of his letter to general arguments and claims about a "critical national shortage of child 
and adolescent psychiatrists." 
Page 6 
[The petitioner] has reached a level of uncommon expertise in his field. His reputation 
is well-known in the psychiatry community and his exceptional clinical skills are highly 
sought after to treat some of the most complex behavioral disorders. 
[The petitioner] has distinguished himself in the field of child and adolescent psychiatry 
by demonstrating an extraordinary ability to perform the most innovative diagnostic and 
treatment procedures. For example, [ the petitioner] is one of the country's foremost 
experts in treating patients with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) .... 
[The petitioner] has successfully diagnosed and treated some of the most complex cases 
of ADHD, time and again, despite the recognized difficulty in deciphering its symptoms 
with other disorders. 
Regarding the petitioner's research work, __ stated: 
[The petitioner] In a 3-year long comorbidity study that he conducted in India from 
1998-2001, [the petitioner] ... reported that there was a statistically significant 
difference between bipolar-l and major depressive disorder (recurrent) with regard[] to 
duration of current episode at the time of presentation. This finding has public health 
significance underlying the need for early detection and intervention in recurrent 
depressive disorder in India .... He has followed up this research there with numerous 
psychopharmacological trials in the United States that have researched the efficacy and 
safety of various new psychopharmacological compounds in ADHD, major depressive 
disorder, schizophrenia and generalized anxiety disorder. 
__ stated that the petitioner's conference presentations, book chapters, and "expert opinion 
articles" demonstrate the petitioner's standing in his field. 
One of the numerous areas in which [the petitioner] is recognized in the child psychiatry 
community is for his abilities in diagnosing and treating major mood disorders including 
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) among children and adolescents .... 
[The petitioner] has not only honed clinical expertise in treating adolescents suffering 
from MDD, but has also been recognized for his research expertise in the area of MDD. 
[The petitioner] has been able to develop some new research data on the impact of 
comorbid ADHD in Major Depressive Disorder. ... [A forthcoming research paper by 
the petitioner] is the first time in the field of child and adolescent psychiatry that an 
effectiveness-based comparison of various treatment options has been done in 
adolescents with comorbid depression and ADHD. 
-Page 7 
Furthermore, [the petitioner], along with his colleagues, has devoted his time and 
resources in identifying some innovative diagnostic methodologies as well as treatment 
options for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). For example, he is researching the 
efficacy and tolerability of Selegiline transdermal patch for depression in adolescents. 
This study in adolescents could lead on to understanding the antidepressant effects of a 
monoamine oxidase inhibitor. ... This will also open up avenues of utilizing a different 
and probably a more precise route of antidepressant delivery. Another area of 
groundbreaking development is the utilization of videoconferencing in diagnosing 
children with depression with child depression rating scale ... [ which] can take child 
psychiatry into the remote areas of the country and improve access to care. . . . [The 
petitioner's] findings have thus already influenced other medical researchers, and [they] 
will benefit countless patients nationwide as well as instigate better patient management. 
[The petitioner] is a physician-scientist of the highest order. [The petitioner's] 
reputation in the field for his superior clinical and research work has resulted in his 
receipt of numerous awards and distinctions of national· his career. 
In recognition of [the petitioner's] research 
_ has cited to [the petitioner's] pUblications .... That the leading nationally 
funded center for research, has cited to [the petitioner's] work is testament to the 
importance and significance of the work. Furthermore, [the pel:iticmer] 
two travel from the 
petitioner] was awarded the prestigious distinction twice is a truly objective evidence of 
his exceptional ability. 
The above claims illustrate a flaw found in many of the witness letters. The witnesses declare the 
petitioner's achievements to be, in and of themselves, clear evidence of the petitioner's superior 
standing in his field, while providing no documentary evidence to show that those achievements are 
as significant as the witnesses claim. The petitioner has, for instance, submitted nothing from the 
_ to show that citation of a researcher's work "is testament to the importance and significance of 
the work." Likewise, the has submitted . from either the 
a 
travel fellowship from either institution is a "prestigious distinction." Witnesses have simply 
asserted, as brute facts, that the petitioner's involvement in writing articles, making presentations, 
and teaching students are each hallmarks of distinction rather than routine duties within academia. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg!. Commr. 1972)). 
In the face of the hyperbolic claims found in many witness letters, it is not only reasonable but 
necessary to expect strong and specific documentary evidence in support of such claims. It cannot 
Page 8 
suffice to point to a particular diagnosis or conference presentation and declare it to be beyond the 
capabilities of most psychiatrists or child psychologists. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and we have considered them above. 
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. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as 
to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give less weight (0 
an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. 
Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. Comm'r. 1972)). 
The petitioner documented several job offers for college faculty positions, and clinical positions with 
private practices. The petitioner did not show that these offers distinguish him from other qualified 
professionals who seek positions in his field. 
A section of the petitioner's initial submission bears the title 
the at times hyperbolic language in the aforementioned letters, it is instructive to examine 
this evidence. 
The first exhibit in this section is an electronic mail message informing the petitioner of his selection "as 
for 2008," and inviting the petitioner to attend 
The initials 
The message states e are ple:ase:d 
mto as an of psychiatry," indicating that, as of 2008, a national 
association considered the petitioner to be entering that field (rather than an established figure or leader 
in the field). Background documentation makes it clear that the fellowship is for "trainees," specifically 
"residents" and "fellows" "who have a supporting . . 
show that the petitioner was a 2007 
in a "program ... open to residents and IF-III",,!< 
for 
me:ss,lge informed the petitioner that he "will be honored 
alongside other student and resident award winners." Again, this award, in context, is for a trainee. In 
his own remarks in accepting the award, the petitioner acknowledged that the award was "for the most 
outstanding paper by a child psychiatrist in training." We do not ignore this award, which clearly 
recognized the quality of the petitioner's work, but we also cannot ignore that the beneficiary received a 
"training" award a matter of months before he filed a petition that attempts to portray him not as a 
promising student, but as an established and widely recognized leader in his field. 
-Page 9 
The remaining "honors, awards and distinctions" are from even earlier than those described above, and 
consist of such things as grants to cover the expense of traveling to various professional conferences. 
The record does not show that the beneficiary has earned any honors, awards or distinctions when 
compared to fully qualified psychiatrists or psychologists, instead of fellows, residents or other trainees. 
If these materials are the best available evidence of the petitioner's claimed standing in the field of 
psychiatry, then we must consider those claims to be highly exaggerated. 
We acknowledge documentation of the petitioner's involvement in various clinical trials. These trials 
are one means of conducting medical research, but the available documentation shows only that the 
petitioner is active in such research. It does not inherently establish the importance of the petitioner's 
research relative to the efforts of countless other researchers in the same field. 
On August 28, 2009, the director issued a request for evidence, instructing the petitioner to "submit 
additional evidence that the benefits of your proposed employment will be national in scope" and that 
"you had a degree of influence on your field that distinguishes you from other pediatric & adolescent 
psychiatrists." The director requested evidence of citation of the petitioner's published research, and 
advised that "ordinary patient-treatment duties" do not establish influence in the field. 
In response, counsel stated that the petitioner "has published and presented in many of the top forums in 
the field of psychiatry." Although witnesses had previously claimed that the petitioner'S reputation was 
evident from the frequent citation of the petitioner's published work, the petitioner and counsel retreated 
from that claim once the director requested documentary evidence of those citations. 
Instead of submitting the documentary evidence that the director requested, the petitioner submitted 
new witness letters. As we have already noted, witness letters are helpful but do not always present a 
complete or accurate picture of a given alien's contributions or standing in the alien's field. 
his second letter, contended that the petitioner "has distinguished 
himself as both a clinical physician as well as an academic researcher." praised the 
petitioner's skills as a clinician and as a researcher, but offered few specifics except to state that the 
petitioner "has ... been instrumental in initiating a national standardized psychopharmacology 
curriculum that has positively changed the way child psychiatry is tanght in leading medical 
institutions in the United States" (emphasis in original). Prof. Wilson provided no evidence to 
support this claim. 
The submitted an April 7, 2009 letter from 
••• 1Ii1T11ebody of this letter is aJmLOSl iOf:ntir.al 
March 9, 2009 letter submitted earlier. That two witnesses on opposite coasts of the United States 
have provided essentially the same letter proves that the letters are not the "independent 
testimonials" that counsel claims. Further, the petitioner's submission of such similar letters from 
two different witnesses raises questions about all of the witness letters, how the petitioner obtained 
them, and who actually wrote them. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner'S proof may lead to a 
reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition. MatterofHo, 19 I&NDec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
tated: "I 
. . .. - . ~ ,- . - . . - ... This 
research has had an extensive influence on the treatment of various psychiatric disorders that impair the 
~f life including· . and . Disorder" _ 
_ stated that one study, been 
~ortant and consequential that it has been funded 
__ contended that the study "has had a profound impact on the pharmacological treatment 
approaches in patients with schizophrenia" and "will have a huge impact on my own clinical practice," 
but he did not elaborate or even explain the petitioner's role in the above-named project. 
independent witness 
[The petitioner 1 is regarded today as a leading expert in subspecialty areas of pediatric 
psychology, particularly Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity and Mood Disorders, and the 
comorbidity of these two complicated disorders. [The petitioner 1 is a top clinical 
research with solid experience in this area, for which his is a much sought-after 
professional in the United States. One of his research studies that had wide-ranging 
ramifications involved an evaluation of the impact of co-existing ADHD in adolescent 
that this study ... was funded ••••••• 
points ... to the relevance of this topic of research 
and practice throughout the country. . . 1 and 
colleagues compared the effects of in depressed 
adolescents with comorbid ADHD. The a widespread 
influence in the management of such comorbid childhood psychiatric disorders. 
does not elaborate or describe the "widespread influence" of the petitioner's research, or 
knows this influence to be widespread if no evidence exists to quantify that influence . 
••••••••• Ista~edthm the 
petitioner's "research really has a profound impact on clinical practitioners in this area. It has shed new 
light on an area of and can directly lead to improvements in management of such 
complex cases." claims that the petitioner's work has "in my opinion, propelled him to 
the very top of his medical specialty." 
The above witnesses, like many others, simply declared the petitioner's work to be influential and left it 
at that, while also claiming that factors such as federal grant funding are inherently hallmarks of the 
excellence and importance of the petitioner's work. The petitioner has submitted nothing from_ 
to describe the grant funding process or otherwise corroborate third-party claims about such fundmg. 
The petitioner submits a test booklet 
assessment examination. The cover page names the petitioner as one of fourteen members of the 
Page 11 
Examination Editorial Board. The two co-editors are 
counsel had identified as independent witnesses. 
and whom 
The director denied the petition on October 21,2009, stating that the petitioner failed to establish that he 
is eligible for the national interest waiver. The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of 
several witness letters, but found that the record did not contain objective, documentary evidence to 
support the witnesses' claims. The director also found that the petitioner had failed to show that his 
work is national in scope. 
On appeal, counsel asserts: 'The record indicates that his skills are so unique that it would not be fair to 
exempt hi[m] from the labor certification process" (sic). Presumably counsel means that it would not be 
fair not to exempt him. Counsel does not explain what in the record supports this conclusion. The vast 
bulk of the record appears to be little more than the standard work product of a physician/researcher, 
and such evidence cannot make up in volume what it lacks in significance. Counsel cannot simply 
make a general reference to the entire record of proceeding and claim that, somewhere in the mass of 
materials submitted, lies evidence of eligibility. 
Counsel states that the petitioner is "able to master many of the most advanced procedures in the field 
and also to teach those procedures to peers, both junior and senior, thereby creating a ripple effect." 
The petitioner does not claim to have developed or refined these "advanced procedures" (which counsel 
does not identify specifically). Learning an existing procedure is not grounds for a waiver. Simple 
exposure to advanced technology constitutes, essentially, occupational training which can be articulated 
on an application for a labor certification. Special or unusual knowledge or training, while perhaps 
attractive to the prospective U.S. employer, does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. The 
issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of 
the Department of Labor. Matter a/New York State Dept. a/Transportation at 221. 
Counsel argues that, having learned the procedures himself, the petitioner can now teach them to others. 
Counsel does not explain how this distinguishes the petitioner from countless other medical students 
who, like the petitioner, take on some teaching duties even while completing their own professional 
training. Also, by counsel's logic, the credit could just as easily go to the petitioner's teachers as to the 
petitioner himself. There exists no blanket waiver for physicians with teaching duties. 
Counsel claims that the petitioner "possesses ... abilities that cannot be easily articulated by objective 
factors appearing in the labor certification process, but that can only be subjectively observed and 
respected by fellow physicians." As we have already noted, when we compare those letters to the 
objective evidence in the record, many of the claims in the letters are so inflated as to be unrealistic. 
Also, the ultimate source of the letters is, itself, in doubt, because witnesses thousands of miles apart 
have used the sarne language in supposedly independent letters. 
Counsel states: "we are again providing a summary of [the petitioner's] accomplishments in various 
relevant categories that demonstrate the national impact that his work has had." We can find no such 
summary in the record. 
Page 12 
The objective evidence of record portrays the petitioner as an active and skilled physician, pursuing 
ongoing professional training in child and adolescent psychiatry. The record does not, however, 
support the exaggerated claims of counsel and a handful of witnesses attesting to an alleged national 
reputation and widespread, yet ill-defined, impact in his specialty. We see no credible evidence in 
the record that would lead us to question the director's findings. We therefore agree with the 
director's decision to deny the petition. 
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 burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 136l. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This decision is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by a labor certification issued by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting 
evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.