dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Psychology

(b)(6)
Date: · APR 1 8 2014 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Admini strati ve Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Was
hington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Fll..E: 
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, 
.h(DuJrLL 
( Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a psychologist. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working as 
staff psychologist at in California. Previously, the petitioner worked at 
as a Clinical Psychology Intern (September 2006 - August 
2007) and as a Psychology Clinician (September 2007 - January 2008). 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 brief from counsel and additional documentary evidence. 
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 petitoner received a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from in 
September 2007. The director determined 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, 101st 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 he seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. /d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. /d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that he will serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same 
minimum qualifications. /d. at 217-18. 
The petitioner has established that his work as a psychologist is in an area of substantial intrinsic 
merit. While the work of an individual staff psychologist at a state hospital would not be national in 
scope, the record reflects that the petitioner intends to continue his psychological research 
concerning religion and violence. Accordingly, the proposed benefits of his work appear to be 
national in scope. 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 
his past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. /d. at 219. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that he will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to establish 
prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used here to require future 
contributions by the petitioner, rather than to facilitate the entry of an individual with no demonstrable 
prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. /d. 
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 he merits the special 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
benefit of a national interest waiver, a benefit separate and distinct from the visa classification he 
seeks. A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence 
on the field as a whole. Id. 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. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
In addition to documentation of his published and presented work, the petitioner submitted letters of 
support discussing his activities in the field. 
Dr. Professor of Psychology, School of Psychology, stated: 
[The petitioner] has an accomplished publication record with articles in top-ranked 
international journals , including Journal of Applied Social Psychology and Journal of Peace 
Psychology. His publications are important for the dialogue between Muslims and Christians 
and identifying resources for peacemaking . Recognizing that righteous anger may explain 
the action of terrorists, his research into Sacred violation, perceptions of injustice, and anger 
in Muslims was the first to examine the role of religious appraisal in the formation of 11uslim 
anger in political events. The findings provide a model for understanding the relationship 
between dimension of anger and religiousness in Muslims, and provide insight into personal 
religious resources for the moderation/mediation of Muslim anger and aggression. [The 
petitioner] also played a significant role in the first effort to frame a scientific understanding 
of peacemaking. He and other scholars were preoccupied with the question, how will peace 
flourish between Muslims and Christians? [The petitioner] and colleagues, in the absence of 
studies to direct their work, conducted a descriptive and applied investigation of Muslim and 
Christian peacemakers from around the world, to identify peacemaking perceptions, 
attitudes, and practices. This engagement with the most complex of all human problem, 
peacemaking, spurred the developed of The _ which is the 
first peacemaking scale endowed with moral principles taken from justice reasoning and 
monotheistic religious faith. The attempts to harness precepts in a 
manner designed to identify behaviors and attitudes relevant to peacemaking practice. This 
scale may facilitate targeted peacemaking curricula aimed at Americans who potentially 
share virtues intrinsic to . 
* * * 
The demonstrates promise in helping to identify core moral domains that might be 
targeted for interventions related to the promulgation of practices. 
Dr. comments on the petitioner's research concerning the role of religious appraisal in the 
formation of Muslim anger in political events and the petitioner's involvement in the development of 
the but fails to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's findings are being applied by 
others throughout the field or have otherwise influenced the field as a whole. While the petitioner's 
graduate research has value, any research must be original and likely to present some benefit if it is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
to receive funding and attention from the scientific community or government. In order for a 
university, publisher or grantor to accept any research for graduation, publication, presentation or 
funding, the research must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. Not every 
graduate student who performs psychological 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. 
In addition, although Dr. asserts that the that he and the petitioner developed 
"demonstrates promise in helping to identify core moral domains that might be targeted for 
interventions related to the promulgation of practices," the evidence submitted by 
the petitioner does not show that the petitioner 's work has yet been utilized in the field as a method 
for fostering peace in communities experiencing religious conflict. Speculation about the possible 
future impact of the petitioner's work is not evidence, and cannot establish eligibility for the third 
prong of the national interest waiver test. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A 
petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of 
facts. Matter of /zummi , 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That decision further provides, 
citing Matter of Bardouille , 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that USCIS cannot "consider facts that 
come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." !d. at 176. 
Dr. , Dean and Professor of Psychology, School of Humanities, Religion, and Social 
stated: 
[The petitioner's] contributions include the development of a self-report survey known as the 
The instrument represents a groundbreaking integration 
of cutting-edge scientific theory and practical strategies associated with reduction of conflict 
between religious groups. The instrument is remarkable for its cross-cultural sensitivity, 
incorporating justice language from major monotheistic faiths (i.e., Christian, Muslim, 
Jewish) in the United States. The instrument has many uses both at home and abroad. 
Dr. was one of the petitioner's five coauthors of the article entitled 
in Peace and Conflict: Journal of 
Peace Psychology. Although Dr. asserts that the "instrument has many uses both at 
home and abroad," he fails to provide specific examples of how the is being utilized 
domestically or internationally. 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. Professor of Psychology, School of Psychology, stated: 
[The petitioner] is an expert on applying statistical methods for quantitative and qualitative 
anal sis in cultural constructs. He garnered these skills under the tutelage of Dr. 
an international pioneer in the field of psychology. His expertise has aided our 
preparation of four manuscripts, two of which are currently under review. In this field, his 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
expertise in both quantitative and qualitative advanced methods is a unique and valuable 
contribution. [The petitioner] has had a number of research articles published in highly 
ranked peer-reviewed journals demonstrating his scientific depth in social and health 
psychology and his technical skills in data analytic methods. 
Dr. comments on the petitioner's graduate research work at his expertise in applying 
statistical methods for quantitative and qualitative analysis, and his technical skills in data analytic 
methods. However , special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national 
interest threshold. NYSDOT at 221. Any claim that the petitioner possesses useful skills or a 
"unique background" relates to whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States 
and is an issue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor through the employment 
certification process. Id. at 221. Dr. also mentions the petitioner's journal articles, but 
there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's work has been frequently cited by 
independent researchers or has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
Dr. Professor of Psychiatry, stated: 
I am aware of [the petitioner's] work through psychology colleagues, in particular, his 
empirical work in the field of cultural psychology as it relates to religion, violence, and 
peace. [The petitioner] has published several peer-reviewed articles in social psychology 
(e.g., the Journal of Applied Social Psychology and Peace & Conflict). 
* * * 
One piece deserving of special mention is [the petitioner's] " 
a potentially useful peacemaking scale. . 
. . There simply is no question 
that peacemaking dialogue between Christians and Muslims calls for the development of 
measures to capture effective peacemaking practices that are sensitive to religious 
worldviews. The demonstrates some promise in helping to identify core moral domains 
that might be targeted for interventions related to peacemaking efforts in both faith 
communities and other specific populations. 
Dr. comments on the petitioner's journal articles and development of the "potentially 
useful" --' but fails to provide specific examples of how the oetitioner' s work 
has already affected the field as a whole. In addition, Dr. repeats Dr. assertion 
that the demonstrates "promise in helping to identify core moral domains that might be targeted 
for interventions" to facilitate peacemaking efforts. However, a petitioner cannot establish eligibility 
based solely on the expectation of future eligibility. Matter of Katigbak at 49. The petitioner 
submits no documentary evidence showing that his published work has been frequently cited by 
independent researchers or that his findings have otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
Dr. Associate Professor , Depmtment of Surgery, 
stated: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
[The petitioner's] key contributions to the field of psychosocial oncology are the role of 
religious beliefs, fatalism, and emotions in screening attitudes and . behaviors. These 
contributions have led to advances in understanding how cultural factors, including 
religiousness, may influence illness representations and preventative health behavior. This 
achievement will allow increased prostate and colorectal cancer screening behavior among 
African-American men, a high-risk a population. These advances have the potential to 
improve health care by targeting religiously based illness perceptions of colorectal and 
prostate cancer. [The petitioner's] expertise in the fields of colorectal and prostate cancer 
can further be applied to breast oncology, and could help to eradicate the widely recognized 
disparities in breast cancer care in African-American women. 
Dr. asserts that the petitioner's findings on religious beliefs, fatalism, and emotions in 
screening attitudes and behaviors "have led to advances in understanding how cultural factors ... 
may influence illness representations and preventative health behavior." Dr. further states that 
this work "will allow increased prostate and colorectal cancer screening behavior among African­
American men" and that the petitioner's work has "the potential to improve health care by targeting 
religiously based illness perceptions of colorectal and prostate cancer." Although Dr. offers her 
opinion regarding the potential impact of the petitioner's findings, she fails to provide specific 
examples of how the petitioner's work has already been utilized to improve prostate and colorectal 
cancer screening rates among African-American men, or to reduce disparities in breast cancer care in 
African-American women. Again, eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak at 49. 
Dr. Senior Researcher, Department of 
, stated: 
I have reviewed [the petitioner's] publications in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology 
and Peace & Conflict. His work is important for new initiatives in developing empirically 
validated measures for resolving conflicts without recourse to violence. 
One significant contribution is his work on understanding the role of religiousness in Muslim 
anger. This is a significant achievement, as there are minimal empirical studies that examine 
this personally sensitive variable in Muslims. [The petitioner's] research has shown practical 
importance in providing models and formulas describing anger experience and expressions 
that are grounded in a particular set of situational or individual characteristics. 
Dr. comments on the petitioner's development of empirically validated measures for 
resolving religious conflicts involving Muslims, but there is no evidence showing that the 
petitioner's models and formulas have been implemented to resolve religious conflicts in various 
communities or regions, that his findings have been frequently cited by psychology scholars, or that 
his work has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
Dr. President, Atlanta, Georgia, stated: 
The mechanisms by which some religious sentiments may facilitate violence and the 
circumstances which influence such developments are among the most important studies in 
cultural, religious and social psychology. Collaboration of scholars from classically diverse 
areas is absolutely necessary to this kind of research; [the petitioner's] varied professional 
background in business, computing , the ministry, clinical psychology, quantitative 
methodology and broader social science areas make him a valuable synthesizer. 
Mr. comments on the general importance of the petitioner's studies concerning religious 
violence, but does not specify how the petitioner's findings are being utilized in the field or have 
otherwise affected the field as a whole. As previously discussed, general arguments or information 
regarding the importance of a given field of expertise cannot by themselves establish that an 
individual benefits the national interest by virtue of engaging in the field. NYSDOT at 217. Such 
assertions and information address only the "substantial intrinsic merit" prong of NYSDOTs national 
interest test. In addition, Dr. mentions the petitioner's "professional background in business, 
computing , the ministry , clinical psychology, quantitative methodology and broader social science." 
However, as previously discussed, special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet 
the national interest threshold. NYSDOT at 221. 
Finally, Dr. Senior Professor of Psychology, School of Psychology, stated: 
[The petitioner's] contributions to understanding cultures, such as Islam, have been 
substantiated by many other colleagues in our field. This is evidenced by his letters of 
support and the number of citations he has received in a very new and specialized research 
field. This is one significant reason we need [the petitioner] to continue his work here. He 
will continue to use his multicultural background and research expertise to help us better 
develop our understanding of such cultures as Islam. 
Dr. mentions the petitioner's "multicultural background and research expertise," but any 
objective qualifications which are necessary for the performance of the occupation can be articulated in 
an application for labor certification. NYSDOT at 220-221. In addition, Dr. points to the 
"number of citations" that the petitioner's work has received. The petitioner submitted search results 
from Google Scholar showing an aggregate of thirteen citation results for his body of published 
work. The submitted search results indicate that five of the listed citations are self-cites by the 
petitioner's coauthors . Self-citation is a normal, expected practice. Self-citation cannot, however, 
demonstrate the response of independent researchers. The submitted documentation reflects that 
none of the petitioner's articles was independently citedto more than four times. Specifically: 
1. . _ _ __________ (Peace 
and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology) was independently cited to four times (plus 
three self-citations by the petitioner's coauthors Dr. and Dr. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
2. (Journal of Applied 
~ 
~r>rinl Ps"rhn/nQv) was ·ndeoendentlv cited to three times; and 
3. 
"' 
was independentlv cited to once (plus two self-citations by the petitioner's coauthors Dr. 
and Dr. 
The petitioner's submission of documentation reflecting that his findings have been cited by others 
in their work is insufficient to establish eligibility for the national interest waiver without 
documentary evidence reflecting that the petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole. 
Generally, the number of citations is reflective of the petitioner's original findings and that the field 
has taken some interest regarding the petitioner's work. However, it is not an automatic indicator 
that the petitioner's work has affected the field as a whole. The petitioner has not established that 
the number of independent cites per article for his published work is indicative of influence on the 
field as a whole. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted additional letters from Dr. 
and Executive Director, commenting on research projects 
proposed by the petitioner. However, neither of the preceding letters explains how the petitioner's 
research work has already influenced the 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 of Y-B, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered 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 a petitioner's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's professional contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. See id. 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 psychology researcher who has influenced the field as a whole. 
The director denied the petition on August 13, 2013. The director determined that the reference 
letters were not sufficient to demonstrate 
the petitioner's "past impact in the field of psychology." In 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 10 
addition, the director concluded that the limited number of citations to the petitioner's work did not 
"present a benefit so great as to outweigh the national interest inherent in the labor certification 
process." The director therefore concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that an exemption from 
the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel points to two non-precedent decisions in which the AAO sustained appeals for a 
chemistry researcher and a microbiology researcher dated December 20, 2010 and January 18, 2005, 
respectively. Counsel argues that the AAO's decisions, which involved researchers whose work 
received a similar number of citations as the petitioner, comport with the present matter. 
First, each petition is a separate proceeding with a separate record. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(d). In 
making a determination of statutory eligibility, users is limited to the information contained in the 
record of proceeding. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(16)(ii). While AAO precedent decisions are binding 
on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished AAO decisions are not 
similarly binding. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3( c). Moreover, counsel fails to establish that the facts of the 
instant petition are similar to those in the unpublished decisions. In fact, the two non-precedent 
decisions quoted multiple reference letters that provided specific examples of how the researchers' 
work had influenced the field as a whole by "resolving a controversy" in the field and by 
"substantiat[ing] a suspicion in the field." Similar examples have not been provided in this case. 
Further, as discussed in the December 20, 2010 non-precedent decision , the AAO "will not set a 
benchmark number of citations that is decisive in all fields irrespective of the other evidence of 
record. Thus, the fact that the AAO has sustained an appeal for an alien seeking the same benefit but 
who had few citations is not determinative." 
The petitioner's appellate submission includes evidence of his presentations at conferences such as 
the (2004 ), the 
. (2006), and the 
program at the 2006 American Psychological Association (APA) convention. 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 , businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies. Although 
presentation of the petitioner 's work demonstrates that his findings were shared with others and may 
be acknowledged as original based on their selection to be presented, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that his presented work has been frequently cited by independent researchers or that 
his findings have otherwise affected the field as a whole. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner "has made specific contributions to the field of psychology that 
have been relied upon by his peers." The petitioner submits a January 31, 2006 letter from 
Chair of the AP A informing the petitioner that his 
proposal entitled ' was accepted for presentation at the 
program at the 2006 AP A convention. The conclusion of Mr. letter lists three "reviewer 
comments" that state: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
• Conceptualization and methodological considerations behind measure are good. Broader 
population for study needed and cross validation to cultures and religious beliefs. N is 
good. Discriminant functions Analysis and Regression Equation Method for Analysis 
would be helpful for looking at factors (go beyond 
• It is research based and should generate discussion . It may not be sufficient material for 
a session by itself and could be in a paper session with another paper. 
• The looks like a very promising instrument for peace researchers and since there are 
so few sound instruments this could be another strong addition. 
Counsel points to the last of the three "reviewer comments" bullets as evidence that the petitioner 's 
work has "been relied upon by his peers." The reviewer comment 
describes the as a "promising" 
instrument and states that it "could be another strong addition" for peace researchers. Again, 
speculation about the possible future impact of the petitioner's work is not evidence, and does not 
establish that the had already influenced the field as a whole. 
Counsel lists various research articles that cited to the petitioner's work, but as previously discussed, 
the number of independent cites is minimal. Counsel asserts that it would be "highly unusual" for 
publications in the petitioner's field "to have a large or even moderate number of citations" and that 
"low citation count is 
the norm for [the petitioner 's] area of research. " Without documentary 
evidence to support the claims, the assertions of counsel will not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. 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. 1, 3, n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The petitioner has not established that the level 
of independent citation of his work is indicative of his influence on the field as a whole. As 
previously discussed, although reference letters from independent scholars in the petitioner's field 
would be indicative of the impact of his research, the petitioner has submitted only a few such letters 
from independent sources which lack specific descriptions of the depth or extent of his influence on 
the field as a whole. Listing the petitioner's research findings and speculating on their potential 
future impact cannot suffice in this regard, because all researchers are expected to produce original 
work. 
Counsel contends that federal funding of the petitioner's work by the U.S. Department of Justice 
shows that his work "is clearly in the national interest." While federal funding of the petitioner's 
research shows that his work meets the "substantial intrinsic merit" prong of NYSDOT's national 
interest test, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that he will serve the national interest to a substantially 
greater degree than other U.S. psychologists with the same minimum qualifications. A substantial 
amount of scientific research is funded by grants from a variety of public and private sources. The 
past achievements of the principal investigator are a factor in grant proposals because the funding 
institution has to be assured that the investigator is capable of performing the proposed research. 
Nevertheless, receiving federal funding to undertake a research project does not differentiate the 
petitioner from other capable researchers, or demonstrate that his federally-funded research has 
influenced the field as a whole. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced degree 
professional or alien of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based 
on national interest. The petitioner has not shown that his past record of achievement is at a level 
sufficient to waive the job offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa 
classification sought by the petitioner. While the petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the 
scale of national acclaim, the national interest waiver contemplates that his 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." Jd. 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"). 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 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.