dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Public Health

PUBucCOPy 
DATE: JUN 1 5 2012 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigralion Services 
Administrative Appeals OtTice (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20S29·20l)O 
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 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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen with 
the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, with a fee of $630. The specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5. Do not file any motion directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) 
requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~
OUit10L 
erry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. Thc 
petitioner seeks employment as a public health quality improvement manager. The petitioner assel1s 
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 ajob offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief 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 found that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree (although the AAO will revisit this finding below). The director denied the petition solely on the 
issue of 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., 11 (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 Inow 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 I national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
I 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 (NYSDOT), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 
1998), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national 
interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit. Next, the petitioner must show 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, it clearly must be established 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that the alien 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. 
The AAO also notes 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. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on October 7, 2010. In an accompanying statement, 
counsel stated that the petitioner "is a nationalllJy-recognized Health Quality Improvement 
professional" whose "work at Catholic Charities Spanish Center has been showcased across the 
United States as a model for quality improvement at healthcare facilities." Counsel discussed the 
petitioner's employment history: 
The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) IS an international public health 
agency with over 100 years of experience .... 
Page 4 
During her tenure with PAHO from 2006 to 2007, [the petitioner] designed programs 
and protocols to improve the effectiveness of emergency operations in disaster areas . 
. . . She also developed a methodology to evaluate safe hospital investment for new 
hospitals in the Americas. PAHO has published that methodology as a guide for 
evaluators under the title "Hospital Safety Index." ... 
A copy of the Hospital Safety Index Guide .flJr Evaluators identifies the petitioner as one of six 
"[mjain contributors" to the project. It is clear from review of the Guide that the document is not a 
general guide to hospital management, but rather a disaster preparedness manual for the purpose of 
"[m]aking all health facilities safe in the event of disasters." Neither the petitioner nor counsel 
explained how this work is directly relevant to her intended future work of improving the overall 
quality of health care. 
Regarding the petitioner's later employment, counsel stated: 
In 2009 [the petitioner] joined . its first 
Health Quality Improvement Manager. She designed and implemented a new model 
for patient care that includes an institution-wide standardized medical record 
management program, active communication between all departments, and improved 
responsiveness to patients. As a result of the structure [the petitioner] set in place, 
this organization reduced the time a patient must wait to receive medical care from 4 
hours in 2007 to 2 hours in 2008. Moreover, the cost of providing service to a patient 
was also reduced by 28 percent during the same period. From 2008 to 2009 the 
number of patients eese served increased by 36 percent. ... eesC's success has 
been showcased around the country as a model of quality in healthcare, and [the 
petitioner's] peers have recognized her critical role in eese's success. 
The record indicates that the name of the petitioner's second employer is 
Sec. executive director of see, cited the same 
quoted above and stated: 
In September 2007, see embarked upon a Health Quality Improvement (QI) Project 
.. . led by [the petitioner I as Quality improvement Manager, whose experience, 
knowledge, and leadership facilitated a culture of quality across the health clinics. 
[The petitioner], during the last three years, developed a quality improvement 
program committed to high-quality care and to utilizing best practices in healthcare 
delivery as key elements in reducing health disparities; and to assure that see has 
organizational systems that support open communication and continuous learning and 
improvement throughout everything see does .... 
[The petitioner's] experience and knowledge moved see to a new level of 
recognition in quality improvement efforts. In 2008, after the first year of starting the 
Page 5 
program, [the petitioner] and our team were recognized by the Institute of Health 
Care Improvement as one of the twenty community healthcare centers in achieving 
major breakthroughs in quality and innovation throughout the country. IThe 
petitioner's J work and innovative methods and activities were shared with a number 
of other community health care organizationls] and hospitals across the United States, 
through different venues like community conferences, conference callIs] and onc-to­
one interactions with representatives of those clinics pursuing similar goals and 
interested in cultural change. 
During the first year, [the petitioner's] work was recognized as well by Primary Care 
Coalition of Montgomery County for being the only clinic, among the local 
community participantls], not only in achieving major quality impacts in clinical 
services, also in ending-up the first year with a strong and sustainable quality 
improvement program. The same happened ... in the first year that SCC participated 
in Quality Transformation Series of DC Primary Care Association. 
Beyond the petitioner's employment history, counsel also emphasized the petitioner's service on the 
Board of Examiners for the Department of Commerce's Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 
in 2009 and 2010, as well as her work on the steering committee of the Latino Health Initiative of 
the Montgomery County (Maryland) Department of Health. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a certificate confirming her appointment as an "Examiner on the 
2010 Board of Examiners of the Baldrige National Quality Program," but she submitted nothing to 
show the requirements for admission to that board or to establish the exact nature of her 
responsibilities on the board. Counsel asserted that the board has over 300 members each year. The 
petitioner submitted a copy of the "Become an Examiner" page from the Department of Commerce's 
web site at http://www.nist.govlbaldrige/examincrslindex.cfm, but the submitted page did not 
specify the requirements to become an examiner. The page did, however, show that the Department 
does not seek out and nominate examiners. Instead, the page has a link for the "Examiner 
Application," and invites readers to "apply to serve as a Baldrige Examiner." 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a "Certificate of Appreciation" from the Department of 
Commerce, thanking the petitioner for her "outstanding service to the Nation as a member of the 
2009 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Board of Examiners." Counsel noted the use of the 
term "outstanding," but the record does not show that the Department of Commerce singled the 
petitioner out in this regard. Rather, it appears that the wording is part of a standard certificate 
issued to every member of the board of examiners. 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver because of her potential 
to improve "the suboptimal quality of health care quality [sic I in America." 
The alien ... must have established, in some capacity, the ability to serve the national 
interest to a substantially greater extent than the majority of his or her colleagues. 
Page 6 
The Service here does not seek a quantified threshold of experience or education, but 
rather a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of inl1uence on 
the field as a whole, , , , In all cases the petitioner must demonstrate specific prior 
achievements which establish the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec, 219 n,6, To qualify for the waiver, the petitioner cannot simply speculate 
that her work could eventually become a "model" for others to emulate, She must establish that such 
implementation has already begun outside of the specific institutions where she has worked, 
The petitioner submitted materials showing that she participated in various professional gatherings, 
offering presentations while employed by PAHO and SCc, The presentation materials do not, as 
counsel claimed, show that the petitioner's work is a nationally-emulated modeL 
Counsel claimed two instances of "l c ]itations of [the petitioner's 1 work by other professionals," 
Neither of the two claimed citations established that the petitioner had had a significant impact on 
community health care beyond SCc, One citation appeared in a master's thesis submitted to George 
Washington University in 2009, The title of the thesis is "Community Health Care Service 
Awareness and Use Among the Washington Metropolitan Area Latino Population," The submitted 
portions of the thesis mention the petitioner only as the source of statistics conceming the wait times 
for various services, 
The other claimed instance of citation appears in an article from what counsel identified as the 
Primary Care Coalition News Bulletin (although no publication title appears on the article itself), 
The focus of the one-page article is a "leaming collaborative" in which SCC was one of 27 
participating entities, The article mentions the petitioner only once, quoting her as saying that SCC 
"needed to switch from charity care (giving out of love) to professional care (giving out of love 
with access and efficiency)" (emphasis in original), 
Several additional witness letters accompanied the petition, Less than half of the letters are signed, 
with the rest bearing electronically reproduced signatures or the witnesses' names typed in fonts that 
mimic handwriting. All but two of the witnesses work in the District of Columbia or in neighboring 
~ County, Maryland. The two exceptions (both with typed "signatures") are _ 
_ , assistant professor of healthcare administration at Gardner-Webb University, Boiling 
Springs, North Carolina, and principal of Hamilton Consulting, LLC, 
based in Michigan. Both of worked with the petitioner, and both letters 
included typed names instead of signatures. 
_, with the petitioner a fellow examiner for the Baldrige Quality Award, stated that the 
petitioner's "research and publications are used nationally by university programs as teaching 
resources," but the record contains no evidence to support that claim. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Maller of' 
Treasure Craft (!f California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
Page 7 
__ a consultant "with the DC Primary Care Association's Quality Transformation Series 
[with] which [the petitioner 1 is involved," claimed that the petitioner's "incorporation of i~,'m"Ml 
~ive and chronic care services" "has been replicated across the U.S." Like 
_provided no evidence that the petitioner has had a significant influence on community health 
care outside of her own employers. 
In separate letters, executive director of Care For Your Health, 
Inc., and Barbara Hoffman Eldridge, quality improvement manager of the Primary Care Coalition of 
Montgomery County, both claimed that the petitioner's appointment as a Baldrige Award examiner 
is a form of national recognition for her work, but the record contains nothing from the Department 
of Commerce to verify this claim. 
director of communications for the Office of Minority Health Resource 
Center, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, described herself as a longtime collaborator 
with the petitioner. She praised the petitioner's work with SCC and the Latino Health Initiative, but 
did not indicate that the petitioner's work has had wider scope. 
medical director of SCC, stated: "Catholic Charities, a national leader in the 
area of non-profit healthcare has implemented [the petitioner's I new methodology." The record 
contains no national-level documentation from Catholic Charities to confirm implementation outside 
of greater Washington, D.C. 
who worked with the petitioner "at Catholic Charities for approximately six 
months," contended that the petitioner's work at SCC "has been recognized and presented as a 
leading case study at quality improvement conferences and workshops locally and nationally." This 
claim, like similar claims in the record, fails to establish that other organizations have in fact used 
the petitioner's work and, as a result, improved the efficiency or quality of patient care . 
••••• , manager of Montgomery County's Latino Health Initiative, praised the petitioner's 
local work but identified no specific product of the petitioner's work that has been implemented 
beyond the local level. 
who claimed a background in public administration and economics but no particular 
public health management, praised the petitioner's "innovative approach to disaster 
mitigation and preparedness in the health care sector." 
The petitioner did not claim to be employed at the time she filed the petition in October 2010. 
Rather, she stated: "Upon my receipt of permanent resident status I intend to resume my work 
toward the creation of a national healthcare system." Regarding her unemployment, she stated: 
I resigned from CCSC for personal reasons. However, I am in active discussion with 
several organizations that are interested in my services. Attached you will find a 
Page 8 
letter from Managing Partner for BlueNovo, which attests to 
my prospects of employment in the U.S. In his letter confirms 
BlueNovo's interest in employing me .... Additionally, I am attaching multiple 
emails from various organizations that have expressed interest in my services. 
In his letter, expressed "BlueNovo's interest in offering prospective employment to 
[the petitionerl to quality improvement in the healthcare solutions industry." The letter 
contains no discussion of the petitioner's existing achievements or impact in her field. Rather, _ 
_ stated that the petitioner's "expertise in healthcare systems and management, and her 
prior work in the field of emergency preparedness and disaster relief with the Pan American Health 
Organization suits BlueNovo's mission .... As such, BlueNovo will be pleased to consider [the 
petitioner's] candidacy for a permanent position" after the petitioner becomes a lawful permanent 
resident of the United States. 
The AAO can find no electronic mail messages in the record that relate to job offers or "interest in 
I the petitioner's I services." Counsel's exhibit list mentions no such messages. The petitioner's 
essentially unexplained resignation from her position at SCC with no new position lined up calls into 
question either her continued commitment to her occupation, or employers' demand for her services, 
or both. 
On April 21, 2011, the director issued a request for evidence, indicating that the petitioner had not 
established a track record of impact or influence beyond the local clinic where she used to work. In 
response, counsel states: "Certainly, USCIS would not take the position that disaster preparedness is 
nationally unimportant, especially in the context of our hospitals," but the record contains no 
evidence that the petitioner has worked in the field of disaster preparedness since her consulting 
work for PAHO ended in 2007. USCIS will not hold "that disaster preparedness is nationally 
unimportant," but uscrs will also not find that approximately thirteen months of experience in that 
field, several years before the filing date, presumptively entitles the petitioner to permanent 
immigration benefits and a special exemption from a requirement that normally applies to aliens in 
the immigrant classification that the petitioner has chosen to seek. 
Several new witness letters accompanied the petitioner's response to the request for evidence. Some 
of these letters simply verified the petitioner's participation in various programs. 
pm:ticip<lticlll in PAHO's Training Program in Internat 
verified that "Ii]n 2010, [the petitioner] was among 578 Baldrige 
applications" for Baldrige Awards. 
of Potomac, Maryland, asserted that the petitioner's past work for P AHO and SCC 
was national in scope, and that: 
In both 2009 and 2010, [the petitioner] was selected to be among an elite group of 
experts to judge health care facilities from all regions of the country as part of the 
Malcolm Baldridge [sic] Award. It is my understanding that [the petitioner] would 
Page 9 
have been asked to partIcIpate in the examination of facilities for the Malcolm 
Baldridge Award in 2011. However, the organization could not ask her to serve due 
to the fact that she is not a U.S. citizen. 
_ did not explain why the petitioner's lack of United States citizenship or permanent 
resident status did not prevent her from serving as a Baldrige examiner in 2009 and 2010. None of 
the materials from the Department of Commerce acknowledge that the Department had any 
knowledge of the petitioner's immigration status when it appointed her in the above years. 
echoed several prior witnesses by asserting that the petitioner's impact is evident from 
her frequent presentations to various groups, but the record does not establish the circumstances 
under which the petitioner made those presentations, nor does it show to what extent (if any) other 
public health entities have implemented the petitioner's ideas. It cannot suffice merely to show that 
the petitioner has made her ideas available to others. 
senior manager for community access, health promotion and education at CAS A de 
Maryland, stated: "Since March 2011, [the petitioner] was contracted by CASA as an independent 
consultant to develop a comprehensive educational curriculum on breast cancer." _ letter 
dates from March 20 11, meaning that the petitioner had just started this work at the time of the letter. 
-., now executive director of the Columbia, Missouri, 
~ know the petitione~he previously worked at Suburban Hospital in 
Montgomery County, Maryland. _ praised the petitioner's "selection to develop a 
comprehensive [breast cancer] educational curriculum," and discussed the importance of disaster 
management planning in the context of the recent "tornado that killed scores of Joplin residents and 
rendered useless a key hospital in that city." News articles about the Joplin tornado and other 
disasters, such as a flood in Nebraska, do not mention the petitioner or her work. The articles, dating 
from 20 11, instead indicate that some United States hospitals continued to suffer from serious 
weaknesses in disaster preparation, even several years after the petitioner's purportedly influential 
work in that field in 2006-2007. 
The record does not show that the petitioner had any specific experience or expertise in developing 
"a comprehensive education curriculum on breast cancer" in October 2010 when she filed the 
petition. Her later agreement to develop such a curriculum for a flat fee of $1,500 docs not and 
cannot retroactively show that she was eligible for the waiver as of the filing date. An applicant or 
petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the 
application or petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). USClS cannot properly approve the petition at a 
future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg' I Comm'r 1971). Even then, the petitioner had not previously 
claimed that the duties of a public health quality improvement manager typically include curriculum 
development in this manner. 
Page 10 
Another new piece of evidence is an October 19, 2010 press release from the American Society for 
Quality (ASQ), announcing that the petitioner "has completed the requirements to be named an 
ASQ-Certified Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence," This announcement came after the 
October 7, 201 0 filing date, The press release claimed that the petitioner's ASQ certification is "a 
significant level of professional recognition," but also indicated that "more than 170,000 individuals 
have taken the path to reaching their goal of becoming ASQ-Certified" since 1968, a very substantial 
number that undermines any serious claim of exclusivity. 
The director denied the petition on September 12, 2011, acknowledging the overall importance of 
the petitioner's occupation but finding that the petitioner had not established significant impact or 
influence in her field. On appeal, counsel states "USCIS ignored crucial evidence .... The evidence 
included documentation that [the petitioner's] protocols have been implemented at facilities 
throughout this country." Counsel does not identify this documentation. The petitioner's original 
documentation did not identify any facilities outside Montgomery County that have put her work to 
use (hosting a presentation is not implementation of a protocol), and the petitioner's response to the 
request for evidence showed serious deficiencies in hospital disaster preparedness several years after 
the petitioner ceased working in that field. 
Counsel asserts: "The United States Department of Commerce has praised [the petitioner] for her 
contributions to the national" (sic). Counsel refers to the certificate that the petitioner received in 
appreciation of her efforts as a Baldrige examiner in 2009 and 2010, despite apparently being 
ineligible to serve in that capacity. The record does not contain the petitioner's completed 
application forms, and therefore the AAO cannot determine whether the petitioner provided accurate 
information about her immigration status on those forms. 
Rather than establish the significance of the petitioner's past work, counsel simply catalogs the 
petitioner's past work and declares it to be of national significance. Counsel similarly seems to 
presume that, if the petitioner spoke at a professional gathering, then the other attendees adopted 
whatever reforms or recommendations the petitioner offered. The record simply offers no 
documentary evidence that the petitioner's "quality improvement strategies ... have resulted in 
improved hcaltheare provision for and access by low-income families in the United States.'· Tbe 
hypothetical potential for emulation by other providers does not imply that such emulation has II1 
fact occurred. 
Counsel cites letters from witnesses, most of whom have worked closely with the petitioner in some 
capacity. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be 
disregarded simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 
(BIA 2000) (citing cases). The BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the 
introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If 
testimonial evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner 
to submit corroborative evidence. Matter of" Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Page 11 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have received consideration 
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 above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. 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 purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). uscrs may even give less weight to 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 r&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of'Treasure Craji (!f' California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg' I 
Comm'r 1972)). 
Several witnesses have offered claims of fact rather than opinion, and these claimed facts (such as 
wider implementation of "best practices" proposed by the petitioner) are all amenable to 
documentary verification that the record simply lacks. The petitioner has produced, for example, no 
documentation from other health clinics to show implementation of policies derived from the 
petitioner's work, and no statistical evidence to show improvement of patient care resulting from 
that implementation. Simply showing that the petitioner has been effective at her job cannot suffice 
to establish eligibility for the waiver, because such eligibility rests on more than mere competence, 
or even exceptional ability. 
For the reasons discussed above, the petitioner has not shown that a waiver of the statutory job offer 
requirement would be in the national interest of the United States. Review of the record reveals 
another ground for denial of the petition. 
The AAO may deny an application or petition that fails to comply with the technical requirements of 
the law even if the Service Center does not identify all of the grounds for denial in the initial 
decision. See Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 
2001), aIt'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) 
(noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
In order for the petitioner to qualify for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the uscrs regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A) requires the petitioner to 
submit an official academic record showing that the alien has an United States advanced degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree. 
The petitioner submitted translated copies of two diplomas from universities in Argentina. The 
translation of a 2003 diploma from Favoloro University refers to a "Masters in Systems and Health 
Services Management." The translation of a 1997 diploma from the National University of Cordoba 
reads, in part: "The Bachelor's degree in Business Administration / Masters in Systems and Health 
Services Management" (emphasis in original). Although the translator certified the translations as 
Page 12 
accurate, the translation of the 1997 diploma appears to be in error, mistakenly including language 
from the 2003 diploma. 
The petitioner did not submit any evidence (such as a credential evaluation) to show that her foreign 
degree is equivalent to a United States advanced degree. Absent evidence to show that the 
petitioner's foreign degree is equivalent to a United States advanced degree, the petitioner has not 
met her burden of proof. This omission is a further ground for denial of 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 AAO will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternative basis for dismissal. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the 
benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1361. Here, the 
petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.