remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: EAC 02 266 55 190 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 1 4 a,[llj: 
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 Na'tionality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 11 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
". - 
INSTRUCTIONS: 3 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
L ' 
dobert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
EAC 02 266 55190 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice on appeal. The decision of the director will be 
withdrawn and the petition will be remanded for further action and consideration. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. At the time of filing, the 
petitioner was a postdoctoral research associate at Yale Medical School. 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. 
The petitioner, at the time of filing, was conducting a screening project for glaucoma, a disorder of the eye 
that can cause blindness if untreated. The director, in denying the petition, concluded that the petitioner has 
not shown that her work is national in scope. If the petitioner, a physician, were simply practicing clinical 
medicine, this finding would be defensible, because the impact of a clinical medical practitioner is generally 
limited to the patients whom that physician treats. In this instance, however, the beneficiary is conducting 
and publishing research. We have held that medical and scientific research at major institutions is inherently 
national in scope, because the results are disseminated nationally (and internationally) through publications 
and conferences and because the findings of such research tend to apply universally rather than only locally. 
We therefore withdraw the director's finding that the petitioner's work lacks national scope. 
We note that, on appeal, counsel states that the examiner who adjudicated the petition "apparently thinks that 
only people in New Haven, Connecticut get glaucoma." The conclusion that the petitioner's work is local 
may stem from several letters and documents which describe the petitioner's work on a study, funded by the 
Community Foundation for Greater New Haven, "designed to detect glaucoma among the high-risk 
population of New Haven." Any improvement in glauc'oma screening techniques can ultimately have 
national impact, but the immediate impact of screening "the high-risk population of New Haven" is obviously 
limited to the particular individuals in New Haven who submit to such screening. Thus, the examiner did not 
conclude that "only people in New Haven, Connecticut get glaucoma"; but only people in New Haven, 
Connecticut have been screened by the petitioner as part of this particular project. The national scope of the 
petitioner's work arises from the dissemination of her findings, rather than from performing glaucoma 
screenings on individuals from one city. 
The director. in the denial notice, stated that the petitioner's achievements "pale in comparison" to those of 
some of the petitioner's witnesses. This would be a valid criticism in the context of a petition seeking to 
classify the alien as an alien of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, but here, the 
petitioner need not establish that she ranks at the top of her field in order to qualify for the national interest 
waiver. (That being said, we note that several witnesses have claimed that the petitioner is at the top of her 
field. If the petitioner is unable to substantiate this assertion, the director may take that fact into account 
when evaluating the credibility or reliability of the letters containing such claims.) 
The director stated that the letters submitted in support of the petition "seem to come from individuals who 
know the beneficiary personally." While some of the witnesses are the petitioner's collaborators or mentors, 
a substantial number of the witnesses have no demonstrated connection to the petitioner. If the director seeks 
additional information in this regard, the director should instruct the petitioner to submit complete curricula 
vitae from the witnesses in question, and/or new statements in which the witnesses specify when and how 
they first became aware of the petitioner's work in the field. 
EAC 02 266 55 190 
Page 3 
The director's discussion of citation of the petitioner's published work was appropriate, but citations are only 
one means by which a researcher's impact can be measured. Here, again, the director appears to have given 
too little attention to what appear to be independent witness statements. Upon careful consideration, we find 
that a new decision is in order, subsequent to more thorough review of the evidence by the director. 
We note that general arguments regarding a shortage of clinician researchers do not form a strong basis for 
approval of the waiver, because the labor certification process already exists to address worker shortages of this 
kind. Similarly, we are not persuaded by the assertion that few United States workers know how to operate an 
ultrasonic biomicroscope. Special or unusual knowledge or training, while perhaps attractive to the 
prospective U.S. employer, does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. The issue of whether 
similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
Labor. hfatter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 2 1 5,22 1 (Comm. I 998). 
Even if the petitioner otherwise demonstrates eligibility for the waiver, the director has heretofore overlooked 
a necessary step in the application process. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(4)(ii) states that, to apply for a national 
interest waiver, the petitioner must submit Form ETA-750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien, in 
duplicate. The petitioner did not submit this form with the initial filing, and therefore, even if all other 
circumstances had been unambiguously favorable, we could not approve the petition as it now stands. The 
director did not mention this omission either in the request for evidence or in the subsequent denial notice. 
Because the director never notified the petitioner that this initial evidence was missing, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(8), the lack of this documentation cannot serve as a primary basis for dismissal at this stage. The 
director must allow the petitioner the opportunity to submit Form ETA-750B as required. If the petitioner 
does not submit this form in response to such a request, then by regulation the petitioner has not properly 
applied for the waiver and the director may then deny the petition on that basis. 
Therefore, this matter will be remanded. The director may request any additional evidence deemed warranted 
and should allow the petitioner to submit additional evidence in support of its position within a reasonable period 
of time. As always in these proceedings, the burden of proof rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 4 1361. 
ORDER: The director's decision is withdrawn. The petition is remanded to the director for further action 
in accordance with the foregoing and entry of a new decision which, if adverse to the petitioner, 
is to be certified to the Administrative Appeals Office for review.