sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Biomedical Research

\ 
3 t 
 " *A 
. 
 U:S. ~&ari;nent of Homeland Security 
, _ 20 Mass. Ave.; N.W., Rm A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
identifying data deleted b6 
i I. 
' preventclearly unwarranted 
 U.S. and Citizenship Immigration , 
invasion of+m1 privacy ' 
' .- 
\ 
- 
PUBLIC COPY 
+ -'. 
 -- - 
v, 
FILE: 
 ofkce': TEXAS S$RVICE CENTER ~Bte: NAA 3 0 
f 
* 
<- 
( 
IN RE: petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
*- 
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. tj 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
. . 
' INSTRUCTIONS: \ ,.- 
"- 
- This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
' 
the office th'at originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
d; \ 
Administrative Appeals Office 
-, 
 /- 
I 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Ofice on'appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the 
petition will be approved. 
1 
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 a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner is a 
postdoctoral researcher at the University of Texas (UT Dallas. The petitioner 
asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a jo ation, 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 had not established that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
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 the United States. 
(B) Waiver of ~ob 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 define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress did 
a not provide,a sdecific 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, 
101 st Cong., 1st Sess., 1 1 (1989). 
Supplementary information to the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), published 
at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
Page 3 
The Service [now 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 of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 21 5 (Comm. 1998), has set forth several factors 
which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, it must be shown that 
 . 
the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must be shown 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 U.S. worker having the same 
minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly must be 
established 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 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. 
The petitioner describes her work at UT: 
My project in the Wilkie Laboratory Ph.D. . . .) is ti study 1) the 
physiological role of the RGS 16 (Regulator of G Protein signaling) protein in the liver during 
fasting and refeeding, and 2) the molecular mechanism of the liver RGS16 mRNA and 
protein regulation. 
G protein pathways are fundamentally important during mammalian development and almost 
all life processes in adults, including sight, smell and tasted, regulation of heart rate and blood 
pressure, control of glucose metabolism, etc. G protein signaling is activated by hormone- 
binding to receptors and can be inhibited by RGS proteins. Disturbances in the function of 
G-proteins - too much or too little of them - can lead to disease, such as cardiovascular, 
renal, mental health and neurodegenerative (e.g. Alzheimer's) diseases, as hell as, stroke, 
cancer, asthma, diabetes, and immune disorders. . . . 
Our lab is primarily interested in RGS proteins in liver function 'of nutrient metabolism and 
storage. . . . RSG16 mRNA has a fluctuation pattern throughout the day, coincident with the 
daily cycle of feeding. These observations are novel findings and have never been published 
by others before. The primary interest of my research project is to identify the function of 
increased RGS16 in the liver during fasting. 
I assistant professor at UT, states that the petitioner's "work has already resulted in 
important breakthroughs in bringing together the two most important signaling systems in pharmacology, G 
proteins and nuclear hormone ieceptors." 1 
 [sserts that the petitioner's research has implications for 
"a broad range of eating disorders, from anorexia to obesity, and obesity-related diseases, such as type I1 
diabetes, high blood cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease." 
an associate professor at Emory University, states: 
While I have met [the petitioner] casually at scientific meetings, I know of her by reputation 
and the scientific merit of her research in-aboratory. . . . 
[The petitioner's] work is indispensable to the current and future success of Dr- 
sponsored research. . . . 
Her work has been the cornerstone of important discoveries in Draboratory that 
will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Her work has broad applications for the possible 
development of therapeutic agents that will combat serious global diseases, including certain 
cancers, hypertension and stroke, and liver diseases. 
Researchers from other prestigious institutions such as Yale University and the University of North Carolina 
at Chapel Hill similarly endorse the petitioner's skills and the importance of her findings. These independent 
letters demonstrate a reputation that extends beyond the petitioner's own employers and mentors. 
The director issued a request for evidence, instructing the petitioner to submit documentation to "establish 
that self-petitioner's accomplishments are substantially greater than other researchers working in his or her 
field of expertise." The director's request was generic, with no reference to the initial evidence or any 
specific indication as to what sort of evidence would remedy the perceived deficiency. In response, the 
petitioner has submitted documentation of 18 independent citations of her published work. 
 While this 
quantity of citations is not trivial in the petitioner's field, it is not by itself sufficient to set the petitioner apart 
from other researchers to an extent that would justify a waiver. 
More persuasive in this regard are several independent witness letters, such as the following examples. Dr. 
irector df the Laboratory of clinical Genetics, Mental Health Research Center, Russian 
Sciences, states: 
I have been following [the petitioner's] research since her significant publication of Methods 
in Enzymology, in which she used the state of the art genetic approach, so called QPCR 
(Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction), to study alternative RGS gene expression in 
physiological and disease states. . . . 
[The petitioner's] research achievements have opened a novel domain in understanding liver 
carbohydrate and fat metabolic regulation in physiological as well as disease states, which .is 
an absolute pre-requisite to the development of effective therapeutic/preventive modalities for 
obesity and diabetes. . . . 
Without question, she is a leader in this field. 
meritus professor at the Charite Campus Benjamin Franklin Institute of Pharmacology, 
and "a member of the prestigious German Academy of Natural Scientists 
Leopoldina," states: 
I have known [the petitioner] through the publications and presentations of her work. . . . 
I have known of [the petitioner's] groundbreaking research since her work was presented on 
the VIII International Dahlem Symposium for Cellular Signal Identification and 
Transduction. . . .I was impressed by [the petitioner and her collaborators'] important 
pioneering findings and have followed their research ever since. [The petitioner] has made 
many important findings and her original contributions have been of tremendous benefit to 
the field of G protein signaling and liver metabolism. . . . 
[The petitioner's] recorded accomplishments clearly demonstrate that she is a leader at the 
forefront of her particular area of expertise. 
( 
~rofessorof the California institute of Technology, a member of the prestigious National 
Academy of Sciences, states: 
I do not know [the petitioner] personally and have not worked with her. I have, however, 
come to know [the petitioner] well through her outstanding research accomplishments. . . . I 
am fully aware of the challenging research projects conducted in Dr. laboratory. . . . 
[The petitioner's] original scientific findings have significant implications for understanding 
human health and nupition. . . . 
It is completely appropriate to recognize her as an extraordinary researcher. 
These and other letters support the finding that the petitioner's work has had an impact beyond her own circle 
of collaborators and mentors, and attracted the attention of ranking international experts. 
The director denied the petition, stating that the petitioner's achievements do not set her apart from others in 
her field. On appeal, counsel argues that the director did not give sufficient consideration to independent 
witness letters. The director's failure to discuss the merits of the petition in the notice of decision supports 
counsel's contention. 
The director's denial notice consists entirely of general statements about regulations and case law, with no 
specific discussion of the specific merits or deficits of this petitioner's claim of eligibility. The director's decision 
contains no information about the petitioner's claims except for the statement that the petitioner is a "postdoctoral 
researcher in biomedicine." The stated grounds for denial are so generic that the petitioner has not had a 
meaningful opportunity to offer a substantive appeal. The wording of the decision offers no obvious indication 
that its author of the decision has examined the record in any detail. 
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 field of research, rather than on the merits of the individual alien. That being said, the 
evidence in the record establishes that the scientific community recognizes the significance of this petitioner's 
research rather than simply the general area of research. The benefit of retaining this alien's services outweighs 
the national interest that is inherent in the labor certification process. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence 
submitted, the petitioner has 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. 5 1361. 
The petitioner has sustained that burden. Accordingly, the decision of the director denying the petition will be 
withdrawn and the petition will be approved. 
 . c 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.