dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Public Health

(b)(6)
DATE : APR 0 9 2014oFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 M assachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen , respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U .S.C. § 1153(b )(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a periodontal public health specialist. 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 printouts of recent correspondence. 
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 Gener al. - Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrant s 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 petitioner holds a Master of Public Health Degree from the 
The petitioner also claims a Doctor of Dental Surgery degree from the 
Mexico. An evaluation of the petitioner's education at the 
found that the petitioner "has the United States equivalent of: Completion of four years of study in a 
dentistry program. " The evaluation did not indicate that the petitioner had received the United States 
equivalent of a dentistry degree, and the petitioner did not claim to hold a license or other credentials as 
a dentist in any U.S. jurisdiction . Therefore, the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree owing to her master's degree from rather than her foreign degree. The 
sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus a labor certification , is in the national interest. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest. " The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), 
states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly 
an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional. "] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
In reNew York State Dep 't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOI), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the 
same minimum qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements , and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. !d. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on December 13, 2012. 
The petition form identified the petitioner's intended occupation as "Preventive Medicine 
Physician," with a Standard Occupational Classification code of 29-1069, which corresponds to 
"Physicians and Surgeons." The petitioner, however, holds no medical degree, and counsel's 
introductory statement does not indicate that the petitioner seeks to practice medicine. Rather , 
counsel stated: 
[The petitioner's] specific job duties include the following: identify groups at risk for 
specific preventable diseases or injuries; evaluate the effectiveness of prescribed risk 
reduction measure or other interventions; prepare preventative health reports 
including problem descriptions, analyses, alternative solutions and recommendations; 
design and implement, or evaluate health service delivery systems to improve the 
health of targeted populations; perform epidemiological investigations of acute and 
chronic diseases; and design or use surveillance tools, such as screening, lab reports, 
and vital records, to identify health risks .... 
[The petitioner] seeks to continue her employment in the United States in order to 
pursue work in the area of Periodontal Public Health with a focus on periodontal 
disease and how it is linked to prostate cancer and low birth weight in babies, as well 
as environmental and occupational safety issues, including biomedical Jab safety. 
The director found that the petitioner's occupation has substantial intrinsic merit, and that the benefit 
from employment in that occupation is national in scope. What remains under consideration is the 
third prong of the NYSDOT national interest test, concerning the influence of the petitioner's past 
work in her field. 
Counsel stated: "[the petitioner] has found that periodontal disease (gum disease) in pregnant 
mothers can lead to low birth weight in their babies, which places the babies' health at risk. ... [The 
petitioner] has found that men with periodontal disease (gum disease) are more at risk of getting 
prostate cancer than other men." Counsel cited articles, fact sheets, and other published materials 
confirming the links described above. These materials, however, do not credit the petitioner with 
discovering these links. The record contains no evidence to support counsel's claim that it was the 
petitioner who "found" the described correlations. An October 2006 article in the Journal of the 
American Dental Association began with this assertion: "In the last two decades, the scientific 
community has demonstrated a growing interest in determining whether periodontal disease is 
associated with pregnancy complications." The petitioner is not one of the authors of that article, 
and the article did not cite the petitioner's work as a source. The article indicated that trials were 
underway to determine the impact of prenatal periodontal care on neonatal outcomes. 
An undated fact sheet from the American Dental Hygienists' Association stated: "Research has 
identified periodontal (gum) disease as a risk factor for . .. low birth weight babies." The fact sheet 
cited one source for this assertion, specifically a 2002 paper from the Journal of Periodontology. 
The petitioner, who did not enter dental school until 2003, is not named as a co-author. 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The record identifies a 2008 article in The Lancet Oncology that announced a link between gum 
disease and some types of cancer (including prostate cancer). The record does not include the article 
itself, and the petitioner did not claim to be an author of that article. 
For her 2012 master's thesis, the petitioner analyzed data from the third National Health and 
Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Beginning with the assertion that "[i]f periodontal 
disease is associated with abnormal levels of sex hormones this may indicate a link between 
periodontal disease and prostate cancer," the petitioner concluded: "After adjusting for known 
risk 
factors, periodontal disease was significantly associated with sex hormones .... The results indicate 
the need for further study of periodontal disease and serum levels of testosterone, free testosterone, 
estradiol and free estradiol in men." In the thesis, the petitioner did not claim to have discovered the 
link between periodontal disease and prostate cancer. Rather, on page 2 of the thesis, she stated: 
"Other emerging factors associated with prostate cancer are diet and periodontal disease ." The 
petitioner cited a 2003 paper to support this assertion. 
In sum, the submitted materials do not support counsel's claim that the petitioner "found" the links 
between gum disease and low birth weight, or between gum disease and prostate cancer. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter ofLaureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
Counsel claimed that the petitioner "has influenced the Periodontal Public Health field to a greater 
degree than others in the field ... through development of new and unique approaches that have 
been widely emulated by others in the field." Counsel did not identify these claimed approaches. 
Turning from periodontal disease to occupational health, counsel stated that the petitioner "has 
worked on university campuses, first in small pilot programs, and then in larger campus-wide 
initiatives to promote occupational health for all university faculty , staff, and students, and to 
improve biosafety standards for biomedical labs." Counsel contended that "she has contributed to 
the field of environmental science in three diverse projects . . . which have been studied and 
reviewed by others." The record indicates that the petitioner's experience in occupational health 
consists of part-time employment undertaken in conjunction with her graduate studies at 
sometimes at and sometimes at the 
Under the heading "Evidence of Achievement and Acclaim: Publications ," counsel listed five items, 
specifically four poster presentations from 2007-2008 and the petitioner's 2012 master's thesis. 
Counsel did not identify any publication (such as a journal) in which any of the listed works 
appeared. Under "Evidence of Awards," counsel listed two awards that the petitioner received at an 
April 2008 meeting of the The awards 
recognized the petitioner's efforts as a thesis advisor (she was, at the time, on the teaching staff of a 
dental school). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petltwner submitted information about which "serves 
approximately 143 laboratories. " The information indicates that opened a 
Level 3) laboratory in September 2010, "and the lab has functioned without any major 
interruptions. " The neti_tioner also submitted several pages of information regarding the National 
Institute of Health 's laboratory certification requirements. The existence of these national 
standards shows that followed an existing standardized protocol, rather than developed a new 
model for others to emulate. Following a pre-existing " ~ ___ Certification Checklist " does not 
influence the field of occupational safety. 
Several witness letters accompanied the petition. Dr. 
the Master in Odontology Sciences Program at the 
stated : 
is coordinator of 
Dr. 
[The petitioner] participated in diverse activities ... , such as a teaching assistant of 
Oral Pathology and Periodontology I class. She also participated in local conferences 
as well as international conferences presenting research she and her students 
conducted related to Oral Pathology. [The petitioner] did excellent research [on] rare 
clinic cases in which she developed an extensive literature review for very complex 
cases. She was particularly passionate about research that blended her knowledge of 
periodontal disease and oral pathology with public health in order to meet the needs 
of the community. Not only is [the petitioner] passionate about public health 
research , she is also a true-professional; innovative, positive , obliging, supportive, 
and well-informed .. . . 
In short, I highly recommend [the petitioner] as one of the top experts in the field of 
Public Health. 
All of the remaining initial witnesses work for in coordinator of 
Admissions and Alumni Mfairs at School of Public Health, offered general praise rather than 
specific details about the petitioner' s work , 
stating for instance that the petitioner "is prepared and 
willing to provide Public Health Education to communities." 
graduate research assistant in Department of Environmental Health and 
Safety, stated: 
[The petitioner] is a highly qualified health care professional with experience in 
public health and dentistry. She conducted a study in our area to determine the causes 
of underweight newborns of mother[ s] with periodontal diseases. The results had a 
significant impact in our area. Her results indicated that periodontal disease was 
associated with low birth weights of babies in our community. Her study was the 
only [one] of its kind, whose results identified a target risk group in our community 
where good oral health is essential. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The petitioner's] expertise in public health is among the best I have seen. She is 
among the few dentists who work in public health that are very skilled in diagnosing 
accurately periodontal .disease. Her skills proved essential to the study and made it 
possible for the study to be considered for publication. 
The record contains no evidence that any journal had published , or accepted for publication , the 
study described above. 
The sentence "She is among the few dentists who work in public health that are very skilled in 
diagnosing accurately periodontal disease" also appears in a letter from project 
coordinator for the School of Public Health Regional Campus. Ms. stated: 
Many of the published studies, where periodontal disease is used as a variable, have 
failed to produce promising results in associating it with certain adverse health 
effects. This is mainly due to the author 's lack of expertise in using the correct 
variables needed to diagnose it. [The petitioner's] study produced promising results 
by utilizing a more correct method of diagnosing periodontal disease. Her results 
indicated that periodontal disease was associated with low birth weights of babies in 
our community. 
The record shows that the petitioner did not first propose the correlation between low birth weight 
and maternal periodontal disease, and the record does not indicate that anyone outside of m 
considers the petitioner to have confirmed the link. 
Raymundo Lozano III, safety specialist at UTEP, stated: 
[The petitioner] managed our Occupational Health Program . She did an excellent job 
of ensuring that our diverse research community at UTEP was provided the 
appropriate medical surveillance .... 
Our university is one of the few in the state that conducts research in a high 
containment Biosafety Level 3 laboratory (BSL-3). One of the responsibilities of 
having such a laboratory is to ensure that no infectious microorganisms are able to 
escape containment and infect the community. [The petitioner] is one of the few 
professionals who work in health and safety that have a background in medicine 
coupled with knowledge in public health. These skills made her the best person to aid 
our program by developing prudent and effective standing operating procedures to 
prevent the escape of microorganisms. I am confident that her skills and knowledge 
will transfer greatly to any university in the United States that contain such 
laboratories. 
Mr. Lozano's letter, like that of Dr. Donohue Cornejo, included the sentence "In short, I highly 
recommend [the petitioner] as one of the top experts in the field of Public Health." His letter, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
however, indicates local impact. The evidence indicates not that the petitioner develops laboratory 
safety techniques that others then emulate. Rather, she coordinated efforts to ensure 's 
compliance with existing standards. 
director of Environmental Health and Safety at , provided additional 
information about the petitioner's work on :Occupational Health Program: 
[The petitioner] worked in our department as the coordinator for the University's 
Occupational Health Program. The Occupational Health Program (OHP) is a 
risk­
based wellness and preventive care program for researchers and the 
community as a whole . Due to her background in medicine and expertise in public 
health, [the petitioner] . was a crucial component in helping us expand the 
Occupational Health Program from a small pilot project to a campus-wide initiative. 
She was able to identify which individuals would benefit the most from specific 
preventative medicine initiatives such as immunizations and respiratory protection. 
This allowed for our resources to be used more effectively and direct them to identify 
other segments of our university that would benefit greatly from our OHP. Such a 
community was our maintenance workers who work in noisy areas. [The petitioner] 
performed sound testing in our noisiest environments such as mechanical rooms. She 
was able to identify which individuals were exposed t~ noise hazards. Her expertise 
and knowledge in public health made a great impact for our community by 
identifying this risk group and developing a hearing loss prevention program. 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on April 18, 2013 . The director stated that the 
petitioner had not submitted "any corroborative evidence ofthe impact of[her] work," or shown that 
she "developed new and original methods and/or treatments that have been adopted by others [in the 
petitioner 's] field ." 
In response , counsel stated: 
[The petition er] has worked and will continue to work on significant topics within the 
field of Periodontal Public Health, including: 1) work linking periodontal disease and 
prostate cancer; 2) work linking periodontal disease in mothers and baby's low birth 
weight; and 3) work related to environmental health and safety, including air quality, 
noise control , vector control, radiation protection , water quality, and biomedical lab 
safety, especially in the context of university campuses. 
Topic 3 above has no evident connection to "the field of Periodontal Public Health ." The petitioner 
conducted research on periodontal issues as part of her graduate studies, and worked part-time as an 
occupational safety coordinator while she was a student. Counsel identified no full-time career 
occup ation that would involve all three of the factors she identified. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Counsel stated that the petitioner had established a "past record of prior achievement with some 
degree of influence on the field as a whole .... In the initial filing, [the petitioner] provided evidence 
of Achievement and Acclaim: Publications and Evidence of Awards. Please note that [the 
petitioner] graduated from and taught at one of the most prestigious institutions in Mexico." The 
director addressed the cited evidence in the RFE, noting that the petitioner had not established the 
field's response to the petitioner's claimed publications, or the significance of awards that the 
petitioner received for her work as a thesis advisor. With respect to the petitioner's studies and 
employment "at one of the most prestigious institutions in Mexico," there is no provision in the 
statute, regulations, or case law for granting the national interest waiver based on affiliation with a 
particular university. 
Counsel repeated, word for word, the previous assertion that the petitioner has developed "new and 
unique approaches that have been widely emulated by others in the field," but the petitioner did not 
submit any evidence of this claimed emulation. Counsel's repetition of a prior claim cannot meet 
the petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 534 n.2, and Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 506. Counsel quoted from previously submitted witness letters, but 
almost all of those witnesses are at one institution and all of them have worked with the 
petitioner. Their statements are not first-hand evidence that the petitioner's work has been "widely 
emulated," or that it has attracted serious attention at other institutions. 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner possesses all the necessary skills "to be a qualified and exceptional 
Periodontal Public Health Specialist (sometimes referred to as Preventative Medicine Physicians or 
Public Health Directors) in the United States." There exists no blanket 
waiver for periodontal public 
health specialists, and therefore to be a qualified member of that profession is not evidence of eligibility 
for the waiver. Likewise, aliens of exceptional ability are typically subject to the job offer requirement 
at section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, and so the petitioner_ would not qualify for the waiver by virtue of 
being an "exceptional Periodontal Public Health Specialist." Counsel did not establish that the three job 
titles listed above are interchangeable as claimed. The petitioner is not a "physician"; she neither holds 
nor claims to hold a medical degree or a license to practice medicine. 
Counsel stated: 
[I]t is not common for trained dentists, such as [the petitioner], to specialize in Public 
Health. The fact that she is a trained dentist makes her work in Public Health more 
valuable because she is more prepared 
than others in the Public Health field to prevent 
disease and injury, as well as diagnose disease, because she knows the mechanisms of 
the body and how the body works. 
The record does not support the claim that the petitioner's training in dentistry makes the petitioner a 
more effective public health worker. Also, the petitioner does not qualify for the waiver by virtue of 
having specialized training. See NYSDOT , 22 I&N Dec. 221. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Counsel also asserted that "public health studies take time .... Some studies can take up to four 
years to complete. Thus, related studies also take time to develop, be completed and then 
published." Counsel noted that the petitioner's most significant claimed work took place between 
2009 and 2012. This assertion does not indicate that the petitioner's work has influenced the field. 
Rather, it is an attempt to explain the lack of evidence of influence. The contention that the 
petitioner's work is so new that has not yet had time to influence others is not grounds for granting 
the national interest waiver. Rather , it is grounds for concluding that the waiver application was 
premature. The petitioner must be eligible for the benefit sought at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l). The petitioner cannot show that she was eligible on the date of filing by contending 
that her influence will become evident in future years. 
Most of the exhibits submitted with the RFE response duplicate previous submissions, apart for 
background materials about public health dentistry (which addresses onlv the undisputed intrinsic 
merit of the occupation) and new letters, all from witnesses at m 
now a research technician at Southwestern Medical Center in 
previously collaborated with the petitioner at the campus of the School of Public Health. 
Ms. stated that the petitioner's "background in dentistry " and her "knowledge in public 
health field made a perfect fit for her contribution to [a] study" "to determine and to better 
understand if a correlation exists between underweight newborns and periodontal diseases m 
mothers." Ms. did not specify the nature of the petitioner's contribution to the study. 
Other witnesses supplemented previously submitted letters. in her second letter, 
stated that the petitioner "conducted a study in the area," which "indicated that periodontal 
infection is a contributing factor for preterm low birth weight. " Ms. stated that the 
petitioner's "study was the only one of its kind in the community," but she did not discuss 
other literature (such as the 2002 article cited in the petitioner 's master 's thesis) that reported this 
link years earlier. 
provided the most information about the petitioner's low birth weight study, stating 
that the petitioner "was able to recruit 118 pregnant women" for the study , which "has produced 
promising results by utilizing a more correct method of diagnosing periodontal disease." The record 
does not say whether the petitioner herself devised the "more correct method ," or rather learned it 
elsewhere. Ms. stated: "More recently , in 2012, [the petitioner] was able to find an 
association between periodontal disease and levels of the sex hormones, specifically testosterone and 
estradiol, among men." Ms. stated that the petitioner analyzed data gathered as early as 1988, 
which "show[ s] how long the information has been available and the fact that other researchers had 
yet to find such association ." 
stated that the petitioner 's "thesis project is the only study that has identified 
periodontal disease as a factor that is shown to increase free testosterone and free estradiol, which is 
linked to prostate cancer. " The petitioner's thesis found only a correlation between the two factors; 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
the petitioner twice stated (on pages 17 and 19) that "causality cannot be interpreted from the 
results" owing to limitations in the source data. 
The above letters do not show that the etitioner' s aforementioned studies have influenced the field 
or attracted any attention outside of or that they have resulted, even locally , in higher birth 
weights or a reduction in prostate cancer. 
stated: "We were very privileged to have [the petitioner] manage our 
Occupational Health Program. [The petitioner] is one of only a few people with the skill set of a 
clinician in preventative medicine as well as an expert in public health that enables her to assist an 
. w1dergraduate W1iversity in the United States." A shortage of qualifi ed workers is not grounds for a 
waiver under NYSDOT, because the labor certification process addresses the local availability of 
qualified workers. See id. at 218 . 
Mr. added that "the protocols that fthe petitioner] developed are still being used today at our 
lab and in our department ... in our manual. " The record does not show wider adoption of 
the protocols, and therefore the petitioner has shown influence on laboratory safety procedures at 
but not on the field as a whole. 
The director denied the petition on October 9, 2013, stating that the petitioner had satisfied the first 
two prongs of the NYSDOT national interest test, concerning intrinsic merit and national scope, but 
had not established that she would benefit the national interest to a substantially greater degree than 
a similarly qualified U.S. worker. The director acknowledged the petitioner ' s past work but found 
that the petitioner had not established its imp act on the field. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director "did not give proper weight or proper application to the 
evidence provided. " Counsel states that the petitioner "has established that she meets [the third 
NYSDOT prong] based on a totality of the evidence under the preponderance of the evidence 
standard ." Counsel then repeats , in slightly modified form , statements from the RFE 
response , many 
of which repeated portions of counsel's initial comments at the time of filing. Repetition of claims 
that predate the denial notice does not substantively respond to the findings in that denial notice. 
The petitioner submits printouts of two electronic mail messages. An assistant professor at 
Health Sciences Center, l, expressed an interest in collaborating with the 
petitioner on a study that , like the petitioner's master's thesis, drew on data from NHANES III. A 
pediatric dentist in Illinois, requested a copy of the petitioner's study "The Prevalence of 
Periodontal Disease among Pregnant Women of Mexican Origin," stating that the "paper may be a 
great asset in helping to educate physicians as to the importance of their patients ' oral health as it 
relates to their prenatal care." Both of these messages date from late October 2013, more than ten 
months after the petition's December 13, 2012 filing date , and neither establishes that the petitioner 
has had concrete influence on her field. An invitation to collaborate with a local researcher is the 
result of the two researchers' perceived overlapping interests . The Illinois dentist's request for a 
copy of the petitioner's paper is an indication that the requestor has not yet seen the paper. Such a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
request is, therefore, not evidence of influence. At best, it provides an avenue for possible future 
influence. 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstr ate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim , but the national interest waiver contemplates that her influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. 217, n.3. More specifically , the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
field of endeavor." Id. at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. "). 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall import ance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted , the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The AAO will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed .