remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 3 1 2015 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
U.S . .Depar·tmcut of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship and Immi gration Services 
Administr ative Appeals O!Tice 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W ., MS 2090 
Washin gton, DC 20529-20 90 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act , 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Encl ose d is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. All 
docum ents have bee n returned to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be 
made to that offic e. 
Thank you, 
j~t,enbe.g 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will withdraw the 
director's decision, and remand the matter for further consideration and entry of a new decision. 
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 physician specializing in hematology and oncology. At the time of 
filing, the petitioner was working on the house staff at 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 filed the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) on September 3, 2013. In 
reNew York State Dept of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national 
interest waiver. The director issued a Request for Evidence (RFE) on November 4, 2013, instructing 
the petitioner to submit documentary evidence that meets the NYSDOT requirements. On January 
28, 2014, the petitioner submitted his response to the director's RFE. The director denied the Form 
I-140 on October 27, 2014. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from counsel dated November 20, 2014. The petitioner asserts 
that the director's decision mentions evidence that was "not actually a part of [ ] the current petition or 
the RFE response." The petitioner further states: "Given that fact that the Service has clearly mixed up 
the contents of (the petitioner's] file with some other unidentified applicant, the present application was 
not adjudicated correctly based on the evidence submitted." 
The director's denial decision discusses documentation that was not submitted by the petitioner and 
which does not relate to him. For example, page 4 of the director's decision includes a paragraph 
about the geographic limitations of the petitioner's employment which mentions letters and e-mails 
that are not part of the record of proceeding. In addition, page 5 of the decision incorrect! y identifies 
the petitioner's employer as ' ' and then lists numerous documents that were not 
submitted by the petitioner. Furthermore, page 6 of the decision states that the petitioner "developed 
a new topical agent ' for treating wounds, but the petitioner in the present matter has 
made no such claim. Accordingly, the decision of the director must be withdrawn, and the petition 
remanded to the director for the purpose of issuing a new final decision that correct! y addresses the 
petitioner's evidence of record. 
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). 
(b)(6)