Case Study: Appeal Sustained and Petition Approved by AAO on a NIW petition for an Alien with little citations but high download number
Background:
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. s 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. At the time she filed the petition on March 30, 2007, the petitioner was a doctoral student and graduate research assistant at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The petitioner received her Ph.D. on August 15, 2007, and subsequently undertook postdoctoral training at the same institution. 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.
USCIS Decision:
Denied the Employment-Based immigrant visa petition, NIW – Advanced Degree Professional. The director acknowledged the intrinsic merit and national scope of the petitioner's occupation, but found that the petitioner had failed to establish the extent of her impact in her field. The director noted that the witnesses who provided letters "do not. . . provide any examples of specific resources that they have adopted or expressed interest in adopting" from the petitioner's work. The director also found the petitioner's documented citation history to be minimal. The director concluded that the record shows that the petitioner has "potential to influence the field," but not that she has yet realized that potential.
USCIS’ Reasons of Denial:
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.
AAO Decision:
Even though the evidence indicates that over 1,200 of the 2,287 "Total Accesses" were repeat visits from the same IP address and the figure of 2,287 "Total Accesses" is, therefore, significantly inflated. The available evidence, in this instance, includes reliable documentation showing significant citation of the petitioner's published work in major journals. Available citation evidence suggests that the petitioner's work is growing in influence. The empirical citation evidence mutually reinforces the letters from independent witnesses, who have credibly and consistently explained why the petitioner's findings are of particular significance in the ongoing efforts to fight lymphoma. The record is not without flaws, but as a whole, the body of evidence supports the assertion that the petitioner has already had a disproportionate influence in her field that is likely to continue to expand.