sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Neuroscience

idmtifyi= dp 
plzveatflagty-ed 
invasion af pawd fi- 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
LIN 06 166 53393 
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 that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u. 
obert P. Wiemann, Ch~ef 
?dministrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the 
petition will be approved. 
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. The petitioner seeks 
employment as a neuroscientist. 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 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: 
(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 define 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 increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would 
benefit the United States economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), published 
at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
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 seelung 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. 215 (Cornrnr. 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 seelung 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. 
We also note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(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 offerllabor 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 qualifi 
for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his 
or her field of expertise. 
In an introductory statement submitted with the petition, counsel describes the petitioner's work: 
[The petitioner] is currently employed at the University of Minnesota and performs important 
research on behalf of this institution as well as for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute 
which is a hosted entity within the university. During his career, [the petitioner] has 
performed significant research in the study of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's and 
Parkinson's disease and has also ma[d]e breakthrough discoveries on the long term effects of 
iron deficiency on brain development and learning in children. . . . 
[The petitioner] meets the third prong of the NYSDOT test, in that his contributions to the 
national interest have been substantially more significant than the majority of his peers. 
Counsel listed 24 articles and poster presentations by the petitioner, and stated that the petitioner's "published 
papers have been extensively cited by other scientists in their own published papers," with one paper "cited 
17 times by others," a second paper cited seven times, and a third cited five times. The record shows that at 
least seven of these 29 citations are self-citations by the petitioner and/or his collaborators, despite counsel's 
assertion that the citation counts refer to citations "by others." 
Counsel stated: "International experts have provided advisory opinions in which they describe the 
significance and value of [the petitioner's] original scientific breakthroughs." We will discuss examples of 
the witness letters here. Professor, who supervises the petitioner's postdoctoral work at 
the University of Minnesota, stated: 
[The petitioner's] research is centered about understanding the role of TGF-P-type factors in 
governing synapse function in the central nervous system. These factors have been 
previously shown to play indispensable roles in numerous developmental processes . . . , but 
prior to [the petitioner's] ground breaking research, their importance in vertebrate synapse 
development was not known. 
Assistant Professor of Yale University stated: 
I find [one of the petitioner's papers] of particular interest for [the petitioner's] original 
development of a direct causal link between the CHLl molecule and synaptic plasticity in the 
hippocampus, which is an important region in the brain that is involved in learning and 
memory. In this work, he first identified that the loss of this molecule disrupts the balance 
between overall excitation and inhibition and results in impairment of neural plasticity. His 
elegant reasoning, whereby he proposed the combination of the nano-level structure of 
neuronal contacts makes this paper a classic in its field of neuroscience research. Before [the 
petitioner's] discovery, researchers in this field had only known that the CHLl molecule is 
important for human mental retardation and schizophrenia, but no researcher yet understood 
the precise reason. . . . 
[The petitioner's] work has resolved a problem of long standing . . . placing him on a unique 
level of having made a lasting achievement that has truly advanced research in our field. 
Recently, [the petitioner] successfully confirmed the existence of an important signaling 
pathway during learning and memory, named the BMP family. His presentation . . . greatly 
attracted my attention, along with other top neuroscientists. . . . [The petitioner's discovery] 
sheds new light on future treatment for neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's 
disease and Parkinson's. 
Assistant ~rofesso- of Yeshiva University stated: 
While I do not personally know [the petitioner], his research has important implications for 
my studies as well as for a number of other disciplines in neuroscience. 
I have become familiar with [the petitioner] because of his recent work on bone morphogenic 
proteins (BMPs) in regulating synaptic function. . . . While BMPs are known to be important 
regulators of neurodevelopment, his results suggest that they also may have a role in shaping 
synaptic function in the adult hippocampus. These surprising and novel results have 
important implications for understanding the regulation of the factors that influence how we 
are able to learn. . . . Secondly, [the petitioner] has . . . looked at the effect of postnatal 
deficiencies in iron on synaptic plasticity. Results from his study provide a basis for 
understanding why fetal and postnatal iron deficiencies in humans may lead to later deficits 
in learning. A third area of [the petitioner's] research of particular interest to me and the 
wider community of neuroscientists involves what are known as neural adhesion molecules. 
These poorly understood proteins are thought by many to provide an essential role in 
modulating communication between neurons of the brain. [The petitioner's] work has 
contributed significantly to our understanding of their importance. 
Assistant Professor Alan El-Husseini of the University of British Columbia stated: 
I have never had the pleasure of meeting [the petitioner] face-to-face. His work is known to 
me primarily through his publications and reputation. In approximately 3 years, [the 
petitioner] has tackled several important problems in my field concerning the function of cell 
adhesion molecules and extracellular matrix molecules during learning and memory. 
. . . [The petitioner's] most important research, in my opinion, has focused on the relationship 
between neural cell adhesion molecules and synaptic plasticity and how to improve learning 
and memory for patients and healthy humans. He invented an original system with which he 
performed multiple electrophysiological recordings with minimal amounts of testing of 
substances applied inside brain tissue. . . . His process has dramatically reduced costs and has 
saved the dosage of protein and avoided slow penetration. 
University of Minnesota Professor Scott Selleck discussed the petitioner's most recent work: 
[The petitioner] has started work on a detailed understanding of the molecules required for 
normal memory and learning in the mouse. This work has implications for many human 
conditions, including autism. One pathway he is investigating is known to contribute to 
autism in some children. . . . Recently a gene called PTEN was found to be deficient in a 
number of families with severe autism and the absence of this gene might explain the disease. 
[The petitioner] is working on understanding the role of this gene in learning and memory in 
the mouse, using a variety of powerful genetic strategies. [The petitioner's] method can 
directly detect the morphological change of mutant individual neurons, such as the number of 
synapses and the branch feature of dendrites, which decide the encoding of information and 
retrieval of memory. . . . He is the major player in this ongoing project. 
Prof. 
 asserted: "I knew of [the petitioner's] work before he joine- laboratory at the 
Howard Hughes Medical Institute in 2003. . . . I was greatly interested in [the petitioner's] papers in which he 
described new functions of glycoproteins in affecting synaptic plasticity." 
In a request for evidence dated February 8, 2007, the director stated that "reference letters . . . and references 
to citations of the petitioner's work are not sufficient to show that the petitioner has a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with 'some degree of influence on the field."' The director instructed the 
petitioner to corroborate the witnesses' assertions that the petitioner's "research has had influence in his 
field." The director also asked the petitioner to clarify the extent of the petitioner's contributions to the 
articles for which the petitioner was not the first author. 
In response to the director's notice, counsel argued that the director did not give sufficient weight to the 
letters and materials submitted with the initial filing of the petition. The petitioner submitted additional letters 
and documentation. A number of these letters are from the petitioner's co-authors, who attested to the 
significance of the petitioner's contributions to the research that resulted in the published articles. 
Among other witnesses is Professor 
 of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, whose list 
of honors and credentials includes membershim in the ~restigious National Academv of Sciences and the 
Institute of Medicine. 
" 
Prof. 
 stated that the Ipetitioner "obtained many aicolades for his new 
findings," and predicted that the petitioner's methods of behavioral observation of laboratory mice "will 
revolutionize the field of behavioral neuroscience, as it will improve the screening of abnormal behavior more 
precisely under a less perturbed laboratory environment." She asserted that she submitted one of her own 
manuscripts to the petitioner, who responded with suggestions that greatly improved the quality of the data. 
Yeshiva University Associate ~rofessocalled the petitioner "a leader in both molecular and 
system neuroscience" whose "published papers have widely influenced the field of neuroplasticity and 
established his outstanding reputation in the field of neuroscience." Regarding this influence, updated citation 
information shows 55 citations of the petitioner's work, of which 16 were self-citations. Several witnesses 
pointed to this growing citation record as evidence of the petitioner's influence in the field. 
The director denied the petition on July 7, 2007, acknowledging the intrinsic merit and national scope of the 
petitioner's work but finding the evidence insufficient to meet the final prong of the national interest test 
articulated in Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation. The director stated: 
The letters indicate that the alien petitioner is a qualified and able researcher but it has not 
been shown why a labor certification would be inappropriate in this case. It is noted that the 
attestations in support of the alien petitioner are not from department heads, chairmen, or 
chief executive officers of institutions in the U.S. and overseas. In addition, where experts 
specify the bases for their attestations, the alien petitioner must submit copies of 
documentation to corroborate those bases. . . . 
[Tlhe documents submitted do not identify the petitioner as program director, principal 
investigator, co-investigator or an equivalent designation. . . . 
The record lacks evidence that the alien petitioner's published research has been extensively 
cited or otherwise recognized. 
The petitioner, on appeal states that his witnesses did, in fact, include department heads, chairmen, and chief 
executive officers. prof. for instance, is a former director of the Whitehead Institute of Biomedical 
Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and ~r (another of the petitioner's 
initial witnesses) is "the founder and CEO of Clever Sys., which is a biomedical and bioinformatics 
company" involved with "video behavior recognition technologies." Professor the petitioner's 
current superior, is the Ordway Chair of Developmental Biology at the University of Minnesota Medical 
School. Even if this were not the case, the director did not explain the apparently arbitrary finding that the 
petitioner's witnesses must be "department heads, chairmen, or chief executive officers of institutions in the 
U.S. and overseas." Certainly, the statements of important figures can cany greater weight than those of 
lesser experts, but this does not mean that individuals at lower levels are not competent to discuss the 
petitioner's work and its significance. 
The petitioner argues that he has "already presented a national benefit so great as to outweigh the national 
interest inherent in the labor certification process," as shown by letters and documentary evidence submitted 
previously. The director's insufficient consideration of this evidence is clear fi-om factually incorrect 
conclusions in the decision, such as the alleged lack of letters from department heads discussed above. With 
regard to the citation of his work, the petitioner submits updated citation information showing 64 citations. 
Given that the petitioner had amply documented his citation record prior to the denial, the director's finding 
that the record lacks such evidence is without basis. 
Not all of the claims set forth by the petitioner and counsel are persuasive. For instance, the petitioner and 
counsel have asserted that the petitioner's membership in the Society for Neuroscience is "outstanding." The 
Society's own materials, however, describe the Society as "the world's largest organization" of its kind, with 
"more than 37,500" members. An organization does not grow to be "the world's largest" by being highly 
selective in admitting new members. These weak arguments, however, do not undermine the credibility of 
independent testimony and documentary evidence in the record. 
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. 
ORDER: 
 The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.