sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Neuroscience

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw~ted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
pUBLtCcoPY 
FILE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u.s. CitiLcnship and ImmIgration Service~ 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Mas::.achusctts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date MAR 28 2011 
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. § lI53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
Thank you, 
/ J (.'y.r'.j 
I. Perry Rhew 
t Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a research scientist. The petitioner 
asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an alien employment 
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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, we are satisfied that the petitioner 
has established his eligibility for the benefit sought. 
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 Job Offer. 
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the national interest, waive the requirement 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 petitioner holds a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from the University of Bern. The petitioner's occupation 
falls within the pertinent regulatory definition of a profession. The petitioner thus qualifies as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue is whether the petitioner 
has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus an alien employment certification. is 
in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor 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 
Page 3 
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., II (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29,1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as Ilexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interestJ standard must 
make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."J 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 Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), has set forth several factors that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
must consider 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. Id. at 217. Next, the petitioner 
must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Id. 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. Id. at 217-18. 
It must be noted that, 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. Id. at 219. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the 
national interest cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. We include the term 
"prospective" 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. Id. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, neurological drug 
development, and that the proposed benefits of his work, improved techniques for drug development, 
would be national in scope. It remains, then, to determine whether the petitioner will benefit the 
national interest to a greater extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum 
qualifications. 
Eligibility for the waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position 
sought. In other words, we generally do not accept the argument that a given project is so important 
that any alien qualified to work on this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. Moreover, it cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses useful 
skills, or a "unique background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet 
the national interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the 
United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
Page 4 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. Id. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, we note that original 
innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
The petitioner submitted a book chapter, five articles and several presentations. While publication and 
presentation of the petitioner's work demonstrates its dissemination in the field, at issue is the influence 
of this work once disseminated. The petitioner also submitted evidence that two of his articles have 
garnered moderate citation. The director analyzed the number of citations and concluded that they were 
not indicative of an influence in a "physical science field," where publication is commonplace. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that there is no set number of citations that demonstrate eligibility. We 
concur. Citations can be useful evidence to corroborate claims of an alien's influence in the field. 
Conversely, an absence of citations can raise legitimate questions as to the extent of an alien's claimed 
influence. That said, citations are not the sole factor to consider and there is no set number of citations 
an alien must demonstrate to be eligible for the benefit sought. 
the petitioner's Ph.D. advisor at the University of Bern, discusscs the petitioner's 
doctoral research. Specifically, that celtain questions about drug interactions can be 
answered through crystallization. further asserts that the petitioner was the first to develop a 
method to crystallize membrane proteins such as the GABAA receptor. ~tates: "This method 
of drug . . became an important research tool, which has becn~ number of research 
studies." then provides three examples of studies that have utilized the petitioner's tool. All 
three articles by researchers at the University of Bern. Nevertheless, the petitioner also 
submitted more independent citations, including an article by a Chinese research team reporting results 
consistcnt with those of the petitioner and a review article by researchers in Italy that devotes an entire 
paragraph to the petitioner's work. 
More significantly,_asserts that in 2004, Roche Pharmaceuticals licensed the petitioner's 
technology from the University of Bern to use in their own research. In support of this assertion, the 
petitioner submitted a letter from a senior scientist at the Discovery Technology 
that Roche Pharmaceuticals 
entered into a technology transfer agreement with the University of Bern and "currently a method 
developed by [the petitioner] is actively used for various drug-positioning projects, where 
crystallization is not feasible or possible." 
the petitioner's supervisor at Boston University, asserts that the petitioner's 
postdoctoral research involved joint research projects with DOY Pharmaceuticals and Helicon 
Therapeutics. _continues: 
Page 5 
I The petitioner 1 also assumed full responsibility for a cutting-edge research project 
focused on understanding how endogenous neurosteroids act at the NMDA receptors. 
In collaboration with DaY Pharmaceuticals, he also investigated the pharmacology of 
ocinaplon, a unique drug that induces robust anxiolysis without causing sedation or 
muscle relaxation. Investigation of the detailed pharmacology of ocinaplon and its 
metabolites led to development of new fundamental insights into the pharmacology of 
these compounds and novel anti-anxiety agents acting via GAMAA receptor, such as 
DOYSI892. 
The letter purportedly President and Chief Scientific Officer of DaY 
Pharmaceuticals is unsigned . no value. That said, the record contains articles 
about ocinaplon the petitioner coauthored wit~ confirming the petitioner's collaborations 
with DaY Pharmaceuticals on this drug. 
Director of the Genetic Neuropharmacology at Harvard-affiliated McLean Hospital, 
DaY Pharmaceuticals has halted further development of ocinaplon, the petitioner's 
work on the means of potentially developing this drug "contributed immensely to our understanding of 
Ithel pharmacology of tranquilizers acting at the GAMAA receptors." 
Finally,_ notes that the petitioner coauthored a chapter in the 25'" Edition o{ the Handbook o{ 
Contemporary Neuropharmacology, which _ characterizes as "a primary textbook for 
physicians and pharmacologists." That chapter is part of the record. 
Dir'ecllorof the Medical Scientist Training Program at the Albert Einstein College of 
Medicine, notes that researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; the University of California, 
Los Angeles (UCLA); the University of Geneva and the University of Strasbourg have all cited the 
petitioner's work. The record contains these citations as well as letters from some of these authors. 
a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, praises the petitioner's 
_butiOl\S as outstanding and confirms that she "used his findings" in her own work. _ 
_ , a distinguished professor at UCLA, explains: "Application of Ithe petitioner'sl m~ 
researchers to collect information on how drugs bind to the receptors they target and optimize their 
structure." _confirms that his research group has used the petitioner's research, including in 
an article published in the Proceedings of" the National Academy (}{Sciences. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of" S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." ld. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matterrd'Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
· .. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USClS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
or Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of" V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter or SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crafi of" Cali/ornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above, which come from both those with first hand knowledge of the 
petitioner's work as well as independent sources, specifically identify innovations and provide 
specific examples of how those innovations have int1uenced the field. The petitioner also submitted 
corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition. 
In summary, the petitioner has developed techniques that a pharmaceutical company has licensed and 
that the University of Bern and more independent institutions have utilized. The petitioner submitted 
both letters from independent researchers who have applied his work as well as evidence of moderate 
citation. While not determinative, we note the submission of an email from a 
professor at the University of Vienna, requesting that the petitioner serve as an external reviewer for 
a thesis and offering to pay the petitioner's airfare from the United States and living expenses during 
the thesis defense. This request is certainly consistent with a finding that the petitioner has had an 
influence beyond the institutions where he has studied or worked. Given all of the evidence in the 
aggregate, including evidence not mentioned in this decision. we are satisfied that the petitioner has 
demonstrated his eligibility for the benefit sought. 
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 above testimony, and further testimony in the record, establishes that the 
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 alien employment certification process. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence submitted, the 
petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved alien employment 
ce11ification 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 sustained that burden. Accordingly, we withdraw the decision of 
the director den ying the petition and approve the petition. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.