dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Systems Analysis

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
lifiBUC copy 
DATE' 
. JAN 09 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U. S. Ci tizenshi p 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
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: 
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. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days ofthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
C1C@. ... ~ 
PerryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
-Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § IIS3(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks systems analyst. At the time she filed the petition, the 
petitioner worked a health maintenance organization (HMO) in Cambridge, 
Massachusetts. 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 ofthe United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement and background materials relating to her work. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations defme 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 
-Page 3 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, 101 st Cong., 1st Sess., II (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] 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 ojNew York State Dept. oj 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 United States worker having the same minimum 
qualifications. 
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. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The intention behind the term "prospective" is to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to fucilitate 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 April 17, 2009. In an accompanying statement, the 
petitioner explained why she believes that she qualifies for the waiver: 
I worked with Centers for Medicare on a Pilot program to develop a secure electronic 
alternative to telephone and written inquiries from providers. The pilot program 
-Page 4 
included a secure website on the public internet that allowed pilot providers to get 
answers .... 
The other pilot project I worked on was for the Electronic medical record/CERT 
project model which was geared towards a national appeal to most states given the 
large effort to both improve the quality of care and reduce costs. The purpose ofthis 
pilot was to evaluate the feasibility of migrating providers from telephone and written 
correspondence to electronic, online, transaction over the public Internet for 
interaction with the Medicare contractors. 
· . . The promise we made was that by centralizing access to medical record 
information, the solution will improve the convenience to providers and cont[r]actors; 
and effectively reduce the overall cost of sharing clinical data within the Medicare 
program. This also ends duplication of diagnostic tests and will allow physicians to 
share patient history. 
The petitioner offered various arguments regarding the advantages of electronic medical records. 
These arguments attest to the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's work. Such work derives national 
scope through the introduction of national networks to share medical information. Foundational 
assertions about electronic medical records, therefore, meet the fIrst two prongs ofthe three-pronged 
NYSDOT test, but they do not establish a blanket waiver for all qualifIed workers seeking to 
establish and improve such a system. It remains for the petitioner to establish that she, as an 
individual, merits a waiver through her continuing work in the fIeld. In her opening statement, the 
petitioner did little more than claim involvement in two pilot projects. The AAO now turns to the 
accompanying evidence to determine the extent and impact ofthis invo Ivement. 
The petitioner offered the following description of her work at 
since January 2007: 
• Research and help design and develop solutions for business solutions 
• Develop functional specifIcations for new systems 
• Analyzing business functions for the organization 
• ModifY and improve existing systems 
her employer 
• Implementing business and technical solutions through application of the 
appropriate software development life cycle methodology 
• User acceptance testing 
• Develop and Execute Test plans for new and ongoing projects to ensure proper 
functionality 
• Document current and new system processes 
• Act as a liaison between the developers and the users 
• Using Multi-tasking skills 
• Gather business requirements from users 
Page 5 
• Manage projects that involve integrating new and modifYing current systems into 
the organization 
• Manage ongoing projects, develop training guides, policy and procedures and 
seminars for new and existing systems 
• Compile and submit quarterly and annual reports to the State or Federal 
government on behalf of the SCO program such as the annual SCO Reports 
• Educate users on the use of new system enhancements 
• Oversee and manage new software development initiatives for the company 
• Provide leadership for new process-re-engineering initiatives that affect 
beneficiaries or providers 
• Develop forms that improve day to day processes or department workflow. 
The petitioner submitted information regarding a 
manufacturer of educational software, and a an iiilimiiill\;t; 
Financial Services. The petitioner did not explain the relevance of these projects to her waiver claim 
(which centered on electronic medical records). 
ac(;onJpami()d the initial filing. is an assistant professor at_ 
management. 
creative insight to 
where the beneficiary earned a B.S. in information systems 
the petitioner's "scholarly student attitude" and her "special and 
operations of the Health Care Industry," but offered no specifics. 
an application developer for 
pel:iti(lner' "',urlen/isc)r and mentor . . . at 
prallseo the petitioner as "an extremely bright and highly 
motivated employee," but, like provided no specific information about the petitioner's 
contributions. 
More details appear in the remaining two "'''~'', 
and A&M College, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 
the university, stated: 
members at Southern University 
an associate professor at 
I have interacted with [the petitioner) professionally and was very impressed with her 
IT skills. From this experience it is my belief that her strong skills in software 
developmental [sic) and application positively contributes to the overall development 
of a strategic American industry and hence her presence is critical to the 
technological advancement of this great nation. 
· . . [The petitioner) has not only established herself as an advocate of applied 
technology especially in the healthcare industry but has also without doubt excelled in 
her academic endeavors .... 
Page 6 
[The petitioner] stands out among her peers as part of a team that has developed the 
Provider Services Internet Pilot (PSP) a web based secure application that has enabled 
Medicare providers to look up provider enrollment status, accounts receivable 
information, claim status and beneficiary eligibility .... 
[The petitioner] has been a major player in the application of the software 
developmental life cycle concept in all the new software implementation projects she 
has worked on .... 
[The petitioner] participated in introduction of the electronic medical record (EMR) 
concept to the Medicare program that has been approved .... 
The solutions made by [the petitioner] make her a viable contributor in effecting the 
new Medicare reform that has been on going in this county [sic] for the last decade. 
When considering claims about the petitioner's work, the AAO notes that. 
claims no special expertise in electronic medical records. He holds degrees in geology, 
geography and water resources, and is an associate professor of geographic information systems in 
Southern University'S Urban Forestry Program. repeatedly praised the petitioner's 
"solutions," but did not provide any details about what the petitioner actually did in the program. 
[The petitioner] who is now currently working with another healthcare initiative 
between State and Federal governments which affects the poor and elderly 
population, has a main initiative to find ways of improving the systems that make up 
the patients electronic record so that more collaboration between healthcare providers 
patients and the coordination between Medicare and Medicaid can be better 
facilitated between these varies [sic] entities . 
. . . [The petitioner] worked with the SNP [Special Needs Program] Alliance to help 
provide quantitative data that was used to convince congress to get the moratorium 
lifted through Medicare legislation. 
stated that the petitioner "has ... distinguished herself as a force," IS 
involved in seeking solutions to improve how the Medicare ,v"t."m 
suffer a setback if her current work is halted." Like however, 
vaguely credited the petitioner with contributions without actually describing those 
contributions. Like the other witnesses, claimed no involvement in the Medicare 
project. 
-Page 7 
peltitiIDn'~r submitted documentation relating to the Provider Services Internet Pilot prepared by 
the and "Re-Submitted Sept 23, 2004," some four 
and a half years s filing The record contains no documentation of the 
extent of the pilot project's implementation. The materials in the record provide little information 
about the petitioner's role in the project, apart from a page marked "User Acceptance Testing 
Specifications I Provider Services Internet Pilot I Website Navigation," followed by the petitioner's 
name. The petitioner le~n late 2005. 
Another document, entitled 
dated October 17, 2008, identified petItioner as its a 
compilation of data obtained from various program participants. 
On February 10,2010, the director issued a request for evidence, instructing the petitioner to "submit 
any available documentary evidence" of her "influence as a computer systems analyst" that sets her 
apart in her field. In response, the petitioner essentially repeated her prior claims and submitted 
copies of news articles, press releases and reports about _Medicare reform and electronic 
medical records. The published materials, like those submitted previously, addressed the intrinsic 
merit and national scope ofthe overall issues but did not mention the petitioner, much less shed light 
on her contributions. 
The petitioner submitted another copy of the October 17, 2008 report in her name, but this 
document, on its face, does not show that the petitioner did anything other than assemble data into 
tables. It is not self-evident that it is in the national interest for the petitioner, rather than another 
qualified worker, to be the one preparing reports of this kind. 
The director denied the petition on October 18, 2010. The director acknowledged the intrinsic merit 
and national scope of the projects on which the petitioner has worked, but stated that the witness 
letters and other evidence "fail to demonstrate why a labor certification would be inappropriate in 
this case." The director stated: "her involvement with the pilot programs in itself is not indicative of 
achievements or influence on the field, or that she has a past record of specific prior achievements 
which justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest." 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
I played a leadership role on the Provider Services Internet Project and the Electronic 
medical records project and a third IVR (internet voice recorder[)] project. The 
project was used as a baseline by_ to asses[sJ the way to move forward on the 
continued effort to modernize, cut costs and reduce redundancy between provider 
services and Medicare beneficiaries. My involver me Jnt including [sic J the designing 
and creating the actual provider database that housed the sample pool of providers 
both in N.E. and CA. I also created and conducted the Testing and Test Plans .... As 
part of the project management team, I also provided initial analysis and design for 
the Beneficiary eligibility, Claims Summary, Provider enrollment, Provider summary, 
Page 8 
Accounts receivable screens for the application. Centers for Medicaid & Medicare 
has [sic] since rolled this out and the application is available for providers and 
Medicare Beneficiaries. This contribution clearly demonstrates my abilities and the 
impact this had on the Dept. of Health's initiative to work on improving the quality of 
care to Americans and also reducing costs by using IT to be more efficient. ... 
Most recently in 2008 I worked on another project to provide Quantitative analysis to 
the Special Needs Plan Alliance which gave this data collectively to the National 
Institute of Health, who used it to provide policy makers in the health Finance 
committee in congress make [sic] a decision on the Medicare Special needs plans 
moratorium. 
The petitioner submits further printouts and information sheets relating to various past projects. As 
before, these documents, at best, reflect her involvement in the projects, and sometimes they do not 
even do that much. The petitioner has submitted no objective, documentary evidence to establish 
not only the (uncontested) importance of the projects themselves, but the impact of her specific work 
on these projects. The record does not show how the petitioner has shaped the progress of the 
various initiatives, or why it would be in the national interest to ensure her continued involvement. 
The petitioner has simply established her involvement, and declared it to be important to the success 
of the various projects. 
The petitioner has asserted that her work has been important to various federal agencies and federally 
funded projects, but the record contains nothing from any involved federal agency to confirm or shed 
light on these claims. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
(Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.