dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Rehabilitative Medicine

.identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servlces 
Office ofAdminisrrarive Allpeals MS 2090 
Washinzton. DC 20529-2090 " 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 0 1 2010 
SRC 06 239 52102 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B. Notice of Appeal or 
Motion. The fee for a Form I-290B is currently $585, but will increase to $630 on November 23, 2010. Any 
appeal or motion filed on or after November 23, 2010 must be filed with the $630 fee. Please be aware that 8 
C.F.R. g: 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion 
seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew u 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 3 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability. According to part 5 of the petition, 
the petitioner is a "Physician of rehabilitative medicine." The petitioner did not complete part 6 about 
the proposed employment. The petitioner indicates that he continues his research, offers advice to 
Korean American physicians regarding integrating "western and oriental medicine" and plans "to 
establish an institute of rehabilitative medicine." In response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, the petitioner submitted letters indicating he was working as a massage therapist. 
The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an alien 
employment certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director concluded that 
because the petitioner did not appear to be a member of the professions holding an advanced degree he 
would need to demonstrate exceptional ability. The director, however, did not expressly address the 
regulatory criteria for aliens of exceptional ability set forth at 8 C.F.R. 3 204,5(k)(3)(ii). Rather, the 
director's decision primarily concluded that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from 
the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed 
below, we uphold the director's decision. Moreover, we find that the petitioner has not established 
eligibility for the classification sought as an alien of exceptional ability (or as a member of the 
professions with an advanced degree). An application or petition that fails to comply with the 
technical requirements of the law may be denied by the AAO 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), ajf'd, 345 F.3d 683 (9'h Cir. 2003); see also 
Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the AAO conducts appellate review on 
a de novo basis). 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(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 thc United States. 
Page 3 
(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. 
I. Exceptional Ability 
As stated above, the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of exceptional ability. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the following six criteria, at least three of which an alien must 
meet in order to qualify as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or business: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of 
learning relating to the area of exceptional ability 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he 
or she is being sought 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) determines whether the evidence demonstrates "a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2). Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 11 15 (9th Cir. 
2010), sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the 
context of a final merits determination. While involving a different classification than the one at issue 
in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's reasoning persuasive to the 
classification sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply the test 
set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new analysis if 
the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the two-step analysis 
dictated by the Kazariun court. See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145; 
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043 (recognizing the AAO's de novo 
authority). 
Evidentiary Criteria 
An ofSicial academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certficate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability 
The record contains a Certificate of Graduation from Hoseo University confirming that the petitioner 
earned a Bachelor of Physical Education in 1995. The transcript reflects that this degree is a four- 
year degree. The petitioner did not submit an evaluation of this degree reflecting its U.S. 
equivalence. The petitioner also submitted the following credentials: 
1. Certificate of Completion for a Sports Masseur course at the Nathan Sports Injury Science 
Research Institute, 
2. Course Completion Certification for "The Course of Traditional Medicine" from the 
Chimkorea Cyber Academy, 
3. "Professional Technology Certifiction [sic] of Ssenior [sic] China Equilibrium Acupuncture" 
from the Gerontology and Balance Acupuncture Association of China and the Health 
Protection Association of Balance Medicine Research Association of China, 
4. Credit Hour Certificate on National Continuous Education of Chinese Medicine - Practical 
Technology of Chinese Balance Acupuncture and Moxibustion from the Balance 
Acupuncture and Moxibustion Committee of the Chinese Gerontics Society, 
5. "Qulification [sic]" from Hanseo University for "completing the courses of O.C.M. Class in 
the Social Physical Education Center." 
6. Certificate of Study from Seoul University certifying the petitioner's completion of "3'* grade 
education of Balance Acupuncture Therapeutic Process," and 
7. Certificate for successful completion of a 500 hour course in American Korean Massage 
Therapy from the Onyx Massage Institute. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that he 
enrolled in a Master of Science program in Health Science and Acupuncture at the New York 
College of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The petitioner enrolled in this program in January 2007, 
Page 5 
after the filing date of the petition. Thus, this evidence cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. $5 
103,2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). 
While we cannot consider the post-filing education, the petitioner submitted other qualifying 
evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204,5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employerfs) showing that the 
alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought 
The on1 letters from em lo ers in the record are December 8, 2008 letters from - 
advising that the petitioner had been working as a massage therapist 
in New Jersey. specified that the petitioner had only been working there . 
for twelve months. The petition was filed on August 3, 2006. Thus, this letter cannot demonstrate 
any employment prior to the date of filing, the date as of which the petitioner must establish his 
eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. 5s 103.2(b)(l), (12); Mutter of Katigbuk, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
A license to practice the profession or cert<fication for a particular prc$ks.sion or 
occupation 
The petitioner submitted the following certifications: 
1. Qualification of Therapeutic Gymnastic Master from the Korean Hwal Ki Do Reformation 
Association. 
2. Certificate of Teacher's Qualification from the Korean Hwal Ki Do Reformation Association, 
3. Black Belt Certification from the Korea Hwal Ki Do Reformation Association. 
4. Chiropractic Certification from the Korea Chiropractic Association, 
5. Certification as a Sports Massage Master from the Korean Association of Sport for All 
Sports-Massage Association. 
6. Certification of Qualification as a Sports Massage Master from the Korea Sports Massage 
Association, 
Page 6 
7. Certification as a Foot Care Master from the Korea Footcare Association, Practical 
Technology Certification of China Balance Acupuncture from the Gerontology and Balance 
Acupuncture Association of China and the Acupuncture and Moxibustion Institute of Beijing 
and the University of Traditional Chinese ~edicine, 
8. Doctor Certificate of China Equilibrium Acupuncture from the Gerontology and Balance 
Acupuncture Association of China, the Beijing Balance Acupuncture Research Center and 
the Health Protection and Balance Medicine Research Association of China, and 
9. Certificate of Second Grade Instructor in Hwal Ki Do (Way of Conduction and Circulation 
Improvement) from the Director of the Korean Association of Sport for All. 
The above evidence meets the plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration,for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability 
The petitioner did not submit any evidence of his past salaries or other remuneration. Thus, he has 
not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
Evidence of' membership in professional associations 
As quoted above, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) provides for licensure or 
certification in a profession "or occupation." Thus, the regulation at 204.5(k)(3) is clearly capable of 
including other occupations in addition to professions. The plain language of the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. $ 204,5(k)(3)(ii)(E), by contrast, requires evidence of membership in "professional" 
associations. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, states that a profession "shall include but not be limited to 
architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, 
colleges, academies, or seminaries." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "profession" as 
"one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any occupation for which a 
United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry 
into the occupation." 
The petitioner submitted evidence of his membership in the Committee of Chinese Balance 
Acupuncture and the Korea Mental Equilibrium and International Equilibrium Medical Service 
Group. The petitioner has not established that these are "professional" associations. Specifically, 
they are not associations for architects, engineers, lawyers or teachers. While they may be health 
associations, there is no evidence that the membership is limited to physicians or surgeons. While it 
is unclear what occupation falls under "equilibrium," the record contains no evidence that 
acupuncturists require a U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent degree as the minimum requirement 
for entry into the occupation. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) requires membership in 
qualifying associations in the plural; so both memberships must be qualifying. It is the petitioner's 
Page 7 
burden to demonstrate what occupation is covered by "equilibrium" and that the occupation is a 
"profession" as defined by statute and regulation. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements of 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
Evidence ofrecognition,for achievements utzd significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations 
Letters from colleagues and employers prepared in support of the petition cannot serve as qualifying 
evidence of recognition. The record contains no formal recognition for achievements and significant 
contributions to the petitioner's field of rehabilitative medicine from peers, governmental entities or 
professional or business organizations. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that 
meets the plain language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that meets three of the criteria that must 
be satisfied to establish the minimum eligibility requirements for this classification. Specifically the 
petitioner submitted qualifying evidence to meet only the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
99 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (C). Nevertheless, we will conduct a final merits determination that 
considers whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated "a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered." 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2). 
Section 203(b)(2)(C) of the Act provides that the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or 
similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning or a license to practice 
or certification for a particular profession or occupation shall not by itself be considered sufficient 
evidence of exceptional ability. Thus, in our final merits determination, we must determine whether 
the beneficiary's degree and other academic credentials and licenses are indicative of or consistent 
with a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. 
We note that while the petitioner is working as a massage therapist, he claims to be a physician in 
rehabilitation medicine and that he will establish an institute in this field. According to the 
Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), physicians in the United States 
must have a degree from an accredited medical school, complete a residency program and be 
licensed.' See l~ttp:Nwww.bls.govloco/ocos074.htm#trainin (accessed November 4, 2010 and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding). According to the same source, physical therapists 
require a post-baccalaureate degree from a program accredited by the American Physical Therapy 
Association and must be licensed by the state. See httt~:llwww.hls.rov/ocolocos~~80.1~t1n# 
(accessed November 4, 2010 and incorporated into the record of proceeding). Chiropractors must be 
licensed, which requires 2 to 4 years of undergraduate education, the completion of a four-year 
' Graduates from foreign medical schools are eligihle for licensure after passing an examination and must 
stdl complete a residency program. 
Page 8 
chiropractic college course, and passing scores on national and state examinations. See 
htt~:Nww~.bls.~ovloco/ocos071 .htm#training (accessed November 4,2010 and incorporated into the 
record of proceeding). Even massage therapists in New Jersey must be licensed to use the titles 
"massage, bodywork and somatic therapist," "registered massage bodywork and somatic therapist," 
"certified massage bodywork and somatic therapist," "certified massage therapist," or the 
abbreviations MBT, RMBT, CMBT, COBT or CMT." N.J. Stat. Ann. 5 45: 11-65,' 
As stated above, the petitioner has not submitted an evaluation of his baccalaureate degree. 
Moreover, the record contains no evidence establishing the significance or reputation of any of the 
organizations that have issued the petitioner certificates and licenses. Given the above information 
from the OOH and New Jersey licensure laws for massage therapists, we cannot conclude that the 
petitioner's baccalaureate degree in physical education and academic credentials and licenses from 
entities of unknown accreditation are indicative of a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in rehabilitative medicine. 
Even if we were to consider the petitioner's memberships as qualifying under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204,5(k)(3)(ii)(E), the record contains no information about the associations of which the petitioner 
is a member such that we can determine whether these memberships are indicative of or consistent 
with a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he is an alien of exceptional ability in 
rehabilitative medicine or that he even has the necessary competency to work as a physician, 
chiropractor or physical therapist in the United States. 
11. Advanced Degree Professional 
While the petitioner has never claimed to be a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
we will examine this issue as well. The first question is whether the petitioner is a member of the 
professions. As stated above, section 101(a)(32) of the Act, states that a profession "shall include but 
not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or 
secondary schools, colleges, academies, or seminaries." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. (j 204,5(k)(2) 
defines "profession" as "one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation." 
While the petitioner describes himself as a "physician" on the petition, the record contains no 
evidence that he is a qualified doctor of medicine or osteopathy. At issue, then is whether the 
petitioner works in an occupation that requires a U.S. baccalaureate or foreign equivalent for entry 
into the occupation. As stated above, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is qualified to work 
2 We acknowledge that the law does not preclude an unlicensed individual from providing massage therapy 
provided the individual does not use one of the titles listed here. 
as a chiropractor or a physical therapist in the United States. Rather, the petitioner has recently 
secured employment as a massage therapist. According to the OOH, a baccalaureate or foreign 
equivalent is not required for employment as a massage therapist. 
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocot295.litm#traininy (accessed November 4, 2010 and incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. Thus, the petitioner is not a member of the professions. 
The next issue is whether the petitioner holds an advanced degree. An advanced degree is a United 
States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. 
8 C.F.R. g: 204.5(k)(2). The regulation further states: "A United States baccalaureate degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty 
shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required 
by the specialty, the alien must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree." Id. 
The petitioner received a baccalaureate in physical education in 1995. As stated above, the petitioner 
did not submit a credentials evaluation indicating the equivalence of this degree in the United States. 
Even if we concluded that this degree is a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate, the 
petitioner would need to document at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. While 
more than five years have elapsed since the petitioner obtained his baccalaureate, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(l) states that evidence of experience shall consist of letters from the alien's 
employers. As stated above, the only letters from employers discuss employment that postdates the 
filing of the petition. The petitioner must be eligible as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103,2(b)(l), (12); Mutter of Kutigbuk, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Moreover, the petitioner would need to 
demonstrate that his experience has been progressive and in the field of rehabilitation medicine. 
Nothing in the letters discussing the petitioner's work as a massage therapist suggest his work has been 
progressive. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not documented that he qualifies for the classification sought 
either as an alien of exceptional ability or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
Nevertheless, in the interest of thoroughness and because it was the director's sole basis of denial, we 
will consider the petitioner's assertions that the alien employment certification process should be 
waived in the national interest. 
11. National Interest 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress 
did not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "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, l0lst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
Page 10 
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. 
Matter of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), 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. Id. at 217. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. Id. 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. Id. at 217-1 8. 
It must be noted that, 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. Id. at 219. 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. Id. 
The director did not contest that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, rehabilitative 
medicine, or that the proposed benefits of his work, integration of so-called traditional medicine into 
so-called medicine, would be national in scope. While we do not question the popularity of so-called 
complementary or alternative medicine, we will not consider "traditional" or "alternative" medicine as 
a separate field. 
There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data 
or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic 
practice is 'Eastern' or 'Western,' is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind- 
body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical 
purposes and cultural interest. 
Fontanarosa PB, Lundberg GD, "Alternative medicine meets science," Journal of the American 
Medical Association 280: 1618-1619, 1998. This does not mean that we will not consider treatments 
termed "alternative" or "complimentary," merely that we require the same standard of evidence 
indicative of the treatment's effectiveness as we would from a researcher claiming to have developed 
a new cancer drug at a mainstream medical research institution. Moreover, "Chinese" or "Korean" 
medicine can include many concepts including herbs, acupuncture, etc. Thus, in order for the 
Page 11 
petitioner to demonstrate that he works in an area of substantial intrinsic merit, he must demonstrate 
that his particular area of treatment is widely accepted as beneficial or at least promising. The 
petitioner relies on anecdotal affirmations from his patients, employers and members of the medical 
field with whom he is acquainted. The petitioner also submitted a letter inviting him to present his 
papers at the 2004 China Invitational Symposium on Rehabilitative Medicine. The petitioner did not 
submit any evidence regarding this symposium or its stature in the field of rehabilitative medicine. 
The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the conference publishes peer reviewed proceedings. 
On appeal, the petitioner discusses anecdotes of accomplishments by those who practice traditional 
medicine, including a qigong expert able to withstand temperatures of 250 centigrade. At issue, 
however, are the merits of the petitioner's personal therapies. On appeal, the petitioner discusses his 
"recipes for tea therapy" but acknowledges that his "new approach has not been adequately 
appraised." 
Without evidence that the petitioner is pursuing medical research in scientifically sound trials in an 
area widely accepted as promising, we cannot conclude that the petitioner works in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. 
The next issue is whether the proposed benefits would be national in scope. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 217, n.3, provides the following examples where the proposed benefits would not be national in 
scope: 
For instance, pro bono legal services as a whole serve the national interest, but the 
impact of an individual attorney working pro bono would be so attenuated at the 
national level as to be negligible. Similarly, while education is in the national interest, 
the impact of a single schoolteacher in one elementary school would not be in the 
national interest for purposes of waiving the job offer requirement of section 
203(b)(2)(B) of the Act. As another example, while nutrition has obvious intrinsic 
value, the work of one cook in one restaurant could not be considered sufficiently in the 
national interest for purposes of this provision of the Act. 
As stated above, the petitioner is currently working as a massage therapist and providing tea therapy 
to local patients. The record lacks evidence that such work would have a national impact. We 
acknowledge that the petitioner initially stated that he would conduct research and establish an 
institute. The petitioner cannot meet the national scope requirement by presenting a hypothetical 
means by which an occupation with an ordinarily local impact might have a wider impact. The 
record lacks evidence that the petitioner's proposal to perform or be the subject of research and open 
an institute is a credible proposal. For example, the record contains no evidence that prestigious 
institutions, such as the National Institutes of Health's National Center of Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine, has any interest in funding or investigating the petitioner's claims or that he 
Page 12 
has the financial means and business acumen to open his own institute. Thus, the petitioner's claims 
regarding future research and the establishment of an institute are too speculative to consider. The 
petitioner has not demonstrated that the benefits of his work as a massage therapist will be national 
in scope. 
Finally, even assuming we agreed that the petitioner works in an area of substantial intrinsic merit 
and that the proposed benefits would be national in scope, it remains 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. 
Eligibility for the waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position 
sought. In other words, we generally do not accept the argument that a given project is so important 
that any alien qualified to work on this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver. At 
issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
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. 
The petitioner submitted several academic and occupational credentials. The petitioner has not 
explained why these requirements could not be enumerated on an application for alien employment 
certification. Special or unusual knowledge or training, while perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. 
employer, does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. Id. at 221. The petitioner's 
education, licenses and memberships also relate to the requirements for aliens of exceptional ability. 
Even if we had concluded that such evidence demonstrated the petitioner's eligibility for that 
classification, it normally requires an approved alien employment certification. Exceptional ability, by 
itself, does not justify a waiver of the alien employment certification; thus evidence relating to the 
criteria for that classification, while relevant, is not dispositive of the national interest waiver. Id. at 
222. 
As stated above, the petitioner submitted a letter advising that the China Invitational Symposium on 
Rehabilitative Medicine had accepted two of the petitioner's articles for presentation in August 2004. 
The petitioner filed the petition in 2006 and indicated that he had most recently entered the United 
States in May 2004. Thus, it does not appear that the petitioner presented these articles at a symposium 
in China in August 2004. The record contains no evidence that the symposium published the 
petitioner's articles in their proceedings or that a peer-reviewed journal has published these articles. 
Rather, the petitioner submitted the manuscripts of these articles with no indicia of publication. The 
record also lacks any evidence as to how many people attended the symposium, who else presented 
work there or other evidence of its significance. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from the Editorial Department of New Medicine in Guangzhou 
advising of their intent to publish the petitioner's article on early signs of disease in different viscera. 
Page 13 
This publication postdates the filing of the petition and cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. 
$5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit 
any information about this journal such as its circulation or impact factor. 
The remaining evidence consists of letters from the petitioner's pati 
acquaintances. The petitioner asserts that he collaborated for two years with 
petitioner submitted a letter fro- who does not indicate that she has a medical degree or a 
- she states that she and the petitioner are "both interested in the integration of holistic - 
medicine, and his research on rehabilitative medicine has many things in common with her own 
research. She does not provide any examples of her own published articles, research grants or other 
evidence that she conducts medically sound research. states: 
Along with the progress of his research, I deeply felt that his knowledge range is very 
wide, which is very suitable for integration of Western medicine and oriental medicine. 
Moreover, [the petitioner] is not limited to his mastery of many branch fields of 
medicine. His quality of a scientist is also manifested in his constant updating of his 
research methodology to catch up with the development of sciences. For example, his 
research of rehabilitative medicine encompasses sport medicine, Western medicine and 
oriental medicines in addition to sociology, psychology, and culinary arts. For a 
researcher at his age, such wide covering is wonderful. More valuable is his 
comprehension of different knowledge to find their common points and intersections 
instead of mere accumulation. Such ability is indispensible for scientific investigation. 
then asserts that the petitioner has traveled to collect information about folk medicine and 
different types of traditional medicine, with requires "extraordinary diligence." These statements are all 
va ue eneralizations that are not helpful in analyzing the petitioner's actual past accomplishments. 
IkB does not identify a single discovery by the petitioner or explain how it has influenced the field 
of rehabilitative medicine. 
asserts that he has attended seminars by the petitioner and has been a patient. - 
affirms that he recovered from severe arthritis under the petitioner's care and that the petitioner "was 
able to do minor surgery operation with anesthesia by acupuncture instead of by drug injection." 
Wang does not address the ethics of performing surgery without being a licensed surgeon. 
then praises the petitioner's approximately one hundred herb tea recipes for therapy and 
that they are being utilized nationwide. 
oes not suggest that any of these recipes have been the subject of scientifically valid research or 
an alleged orthopedist with a degree from Henan College of Traditional Medicine, 
asserts that the petitioner "is able to diagnose gastric ulcer and many other diseases of the viscera by 
simply testing the patients feeling on the ear when he uses an acupuncture needle to stitch a certain 
region on the ear, instead of complicated and expensive lab tests." does not indicate that 
scientifically valid research has validated this diagnostic technique or that it is being applied by anyone 
other than the petitioner. 
The petitioner then submitted evidence from the physicians and physical therapists for whom he works 
as a massage therapist. These letters praise the petitioner's knowledge and skill but fail to explain how 
the petitioner has influenced the field of rehabilitation medicine. These individuals do not appear to 
have been familiar with the petitioner prior to the date of filing. Two additional patients praise the 
petitioner's skills as a massage therapist. These letters cannot demonstrate the petitioner's influence 
beyond his own patients. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from in New 
Jersey, asserting that he has learned from the petitioner and that the petitioner has "carried out long time 
research on com osite Qi Gong therapy, which is much enjoyable with less side effects, as well as more 
economical." b concludes that a degree is not always indicative of ability and that "practice 
makes perfect." At issue, however, is whether the petitioner has a track record of success with some 
degree of influence in the field as a whole. This letter from a local health practitioner cannot 
demonstrate the wider impact of the petitioner's work. 
church's Healing Mission program. Once again, this letter does not establish the petitioner's wider 
influence. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter ofS-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board 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). 
Even if we considered the letters to be from experts in rehabilitation medicine, the opinions of 
experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS may, in its 
discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matrer of Coron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible 
for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The 
submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support 
the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795: 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"). USCIS 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 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) 
(citing Matter r!fTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
Page 15 
The letters considered above primarily contain vague assertions of skill without specifically 
identifying innovations and providing specific examples of how those innovations have influenced 
the field. Merel repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's Y burden of proof. The petitioner submitted no letters from independent medical experts with a record 
of peer reviewed publications in well ranked journals of rehabilitation medicine. The petitioner also 
failed to submit corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which 
could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
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 alien employment certification will be in 
the national interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by an alien employment certification certified by the Department of Labor, appropriate 
supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed, 
1 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Suva, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Mei.~.~ner, I997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, 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).