dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Agricultural Economics

ldentif,ylng data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY: 
DATE: MAR 1 2 2012 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
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: 
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. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
U f)lj1dYlc[~ 
(perry Rhew 
t Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The director reopened the proceeding on the petitioner's motion, and again denied the petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will dismiss 
the appeal. 
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 in the sciences and as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as an agricultural 
economist. At the time she filed the petition, the petitioner was a postdoctoral research associate and 
international grains analyst at Iowa State University (ISU), Ames. 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel and copies of previously submitted exhibits. 
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 petitioner claims eligibility for classification as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences. The 
record readily establishes that the petitioner, whose occupation requires at least a bachelor's degree and 
who holds a doctorate, qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. A 
determination regarding the petitioner's claim of exceptional ability would be moot. 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. 
Page 3 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations defme 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, WIst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (lMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] 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. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998), has 
set forth several factors which must be considered 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. Next, the petitioner must show 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 United States worker having the same minimum 
qualifications. 
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. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The intention behind the term "prospective" is 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 AAO also notes that the regulation at 8 c.F.R. § 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 offer/labor 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 qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on November 10, 2009. On that form, the 
indicated that she was the beneficiary of an approved Form 1-140 petition, receipt H'.UHV· ... ~ 
_, filed in 2008. USCIS records show that that petition Wi 
Page 4 
approved labor certification. Rather than adjust status through that approved petition, the petitioner 
left her position at Global Insight to pursue further training at ISU. 
In a statement accompanying the petition, the petitioner described her work: 
I have extensive research experience in the nationally crucial field of international 
trade and agricultural policy research . . . and have made original and significant 
contributions to the field of agricultural economics .... 
I am currently an International Grains Analyst at the Food and Agricultural Policy 
Institute, Iowa State University at Ames, IA. My work involves the following: 
• Developing and maintaining rigorous econometric models of the world 
agricultural markets. 
• Use models to conduct research in international grains markets and analyze 
policies affecting grain markets. 
• Expansion of biorenewables in the US focusing on the outlook for biofuel and 
crops used for biofuel production. 
• Analyze the impact effect of biofuels growth on the level and volatility of 
crop prices. Effects of policy changes on biofuels production and crop prices. 
• Communicate research results (agricultural projections and policy analysis to 
the US house and senate agricultural committees, United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) analysts, commodity groups and the public through oral 
and written presentations and publications. 
• Aiding various commodity groups such as the National Wheat Growers 
Association to evaluate federal farm policy alternatives in their efforts to 
prepare for Congress work on the next farm bill. Help congress understand 
the impact of alternative policies. 
One of the major challenges to US agriculture remains in reducing oil 
dependency, through focus on alternative sources of energy from food crops and 
reducing green house gas emissions and without sacrificing food for fuel. This has 
led to increase[s] in the prices of food crops .... Effective modeling of the 
international grains market is imperative to help determine effective risk management 
tools for crop and livestock producers, and analyze how government policy affects 
risk management strategies. This has become even more prominent with the use[] of 
food crops as feedstock for biofuel production .... My research focuses on analyzing 
the impacts of US ethanol production on crop acreage, crop and livestock production 
and prices, trade, and food costs under current tax credits and trade policies .... 
As an Economist at Global Insight Inc., one of the largest economic consulting and 
forecasting companies in the world, my work centered on analyzing the impact of 
alternative domestic policies and exchange rates on US trade for government agencies 
Page 5 
and providing in depth analysis of topical issues in agriculture to the US farming 
community and private bodies to aid them in decision making .... The study found 
that market development increased U.S. competitiveness by boosting the U.S. share 
of world agricultural trade. Higher cash receipts increased annual farm net cash 
income by $430 million, representing a $4 increase in farm income for every 
additional $1 increase in government spending on market development. 
(Emphasis in original.) The petitioner asserts that she is "a superior researcher who will advance the 
national interest," and therefore "the labor certification process would work against the national 
interest." The documented approval of a labor certification on the petitioner's behalf, in 2008, 
neutralizes any hypothetical argument about difficulties she might encounter in seeking such a labor 
certification. Whether or not the petitioner could obtain an approved labor certification is no longer 
an open question, because she already did, even if she then left that employment (at Global Insight) 
for reasons that the record does not explain. 
Five witness letters accompanied the initial submission. 
stated: "I have never 
personally worked with [the petitioner]." The the petitioner both 
earned doctorates in economics from the University of Kansas in the same year, -2004. 
stated: 
[The petitioner] is the author of many studies on international trade and agricultural 
markets. She has made several original contributions to agricultural economics. [The 
petitioner's] pioneering work on Geographical indications (GIs) and intellectual 
property rights has been highly recognized throughout the academic community and 
has been referred to in a report by the EU Commission on strengthening international 
research on geographical indication .... 
[The petitioner] is currently the internationally recognized grains analyst of_ 
... _ annual baseline 
ectlOn, " is widely used by the 
international professional, academic community as well as industry. 
The remaining witnesses were all at North Dakota State Un~e the petitioner was 
a research assistant professor there from 2004 to 2006. _, now an associate 
professor at Arizona State University, was previously on the ND~uring the petitioner's 
time there. excerpted below, has many similarities t~ letter: 
[The petitioner] is the internationally 
annual baseline projection, the "U.S. . .. , IS 
used by the international professional, academic community as well as industry. I 
know [the petitioner] as an outstanding contributor to this outlook. ... 
Page 6 
[The petitioner's] other studies on international trade policy and world markets are 
also invaluable for economists as well as US producers. She has made outstanding 
and original contributions to the field of agricultural economics. Because of her 
international recognition as a researcher, her opinions and suggestions are referred to 
at major conferences in the United States. Her studies on geographical indications 
(GIs) have made a significant contribution to the study of trade distorting issues and 
have been referred to in a report by the EU Commission on strengthening 
international research on geographical indication. 
The similar, at times identical, wording of the two quoted letters calls into question their actual 
authorship. Furthermore, the above letters are not, themselves, evidence that the petitioner is 
"internationally recognized" or that "the EU Commission" has relied on her work. The AAO will 
consider expert witness letters as expressions of opinion, rather than as statements of fact. See 
Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008). Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Neither of the above witnesses 
provided any first-hand evidence to support their claims of fact, nor did they establish that they are 
in a position to speak for "the EU Commission" or any other named body. 
Some similarities also exist between the two letters quoted above and the letter 
NDSU 
now an applied agricultural economist at the 
~'\.""""'UL"'H III the Dry Areas, Aleppo, Syria, was a researcher at NDSU from 2002 to 
stated: 
[The petitioner's] original work on geographical indications (GIs) is internationally 
recognized and makes a unique contribution to the current debate on providing 
stronger protection to intellectual property at the World Trade Organization. In 
addition, [the petitioner's] studies on the competitiveness of US wheat and soybean 
markets are crucial to the field of agricultural economics. 
stated: 
I have known [the petitioner] very well since September 2004, when she joined the 
Center for Agricultural Policies and Trade Studies' in the Department of Agribusiness 
and Applied Economics as a research assistant professor. . . . While she was in the 
Center, [the petitioner] was involved in international agricultural trade research, 
including the impact of bi-Iateral and multi-lateral agreements, export controls, 
exchange rates on US agricultural trade. She did an exceptionally excellent job in 
conducting the research projects. 
Page 7 
tated that the petitioner "has made novel and original contributions to the field of U.S. 
trade," but provided no specific information about those contributions. 
a research assistant professor at NDSU and now 
stated: 
I have frequently relied on [the petitioner's] expertise .... 
Besides her contribution to_policy analysis studies, [the petitioner] has made 
outstanding contributions in the field of agricultural economics. In particular, she 
makes an original and critical contribution to the studies on Geographical Indications 
and the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) which is a 
sensitive topic in the current World Trade Organizations negotiations and a major 
concern to the U.S. In addition, her studies on the competitiveness of US wheat 
markets, soybean and export credit are extremely important and provide significant 
insight to US policy makers to aid them in decision making. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) 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 BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of 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. 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 of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 165. 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of the petitioner's influence and 
reputation without specifying how the petitioner's work has influenced the field. The record 
contains no corroboration from, for instance, any United States policymaking body to confirm that 
the petitioner's work has, indeed, had a significant impact on policy. As previously explained, the 
witnesses' secondhand claims of fact cannot serve in place of documentary evidence of those facts. 
The petitioner submitted copies of published reports, articles and conference presentations that she 
co-authored between 2003 and 2009. The significance and impact of this work is not self-evident 
from its existence or its submission, because the production of scholarly research is an inherent part 
Page 8 
of her academic position. To show that the petitioner's work is particularly important or influential 
in her field, external evidence is necessary. 
An exhibit list submitted with the petition indicated that other researchers had cited the petitioner's 
published work a "total [of] 13 times." The submitted printouts from http://scholar.google.com, 
however, showed only ten citations, at least three of which were self-citations by the petitioner's co­
author, Prof. Koo. None of the petitioner's cited works appeared later than 2006. 
The petitioner submitted a partial copy of "United States - Subsidies on Upland Cotton: Arbitration 
Under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement (WTIDS267) I Answers of 
the United States to the Questions from the Arbitrators," February 13, 2009. The document listed 
one of the petitioner's articles as exhibit 97. The petitioner appears to have counted this as a citation 
of her work. Because the petitioner submitted only a fragment of this document, it is not clear why 
the document included one of her articles as an exhibit. Therefore, this document does not show the 
extent of her influence on agricultural policy. 
On March 8, 2010, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE), instructing the petitioner to 
submit evidence to support various claims from the initial submission. The director asked whether 
the petitioner had "published any work since 2006 which has been cited by anyone. The director 
addressed the petitioner's concerns about the "highly inefficient" labor certification process by 
noting the three-month turnaround time (from filing to approval) of the labor certification previously 
filed on the petitioner's behalf. 
In response to the RFE, the petitioner acknowledged that her complaints about the labor certification 
process arose from anecdotal accounts from acquaintances, rather than from her own experience. 
Regarding her work, the petitioner stated: 
One of the most recent impacts ~ an international grains analyst at 
_ has been the use of the _ by the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) to estimate the indirect Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from land­
use change. I was responsible for estimating the international grains section of the 
model which provides acreage projections resulting from the impact of biofuel 
production on international land-use changes for major crops. This information was 
used by the EPA to set the New Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) which incorporates 
changes mandated by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). 
To support the above claim, the petitioner submitted a copy of a "Policy Update" published by the 
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), which stated, in a footnote, that the EPA used 
F APR!' s model as discussed above. The petitioner submitted nothing from the EPA itself to 
establish how much the petitioner's contribution influenced the RFS2. Many organizations act in 
advisory capacities to government agencies. Therefore, the EPA's use of FAPR!'s models, 
including the petitioner's contributions, appears to reflect the standard working relationship between 
the two entities rather than an unusually influential contribution on the petitioner's part. No blanket 
Page 9 
waiver exists for~yees of such advisory organizations, and therefore the petitioner's very 
employment with_ is not, by itself, evidence of eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
Furthermore, the ICCT publication is dated April 2, 2010, five months after the petition's filing date. 
Therefore, even if the EPA's use of FAPRI's model were strong evidence of eligibility, it could not 
show eligibility as of the filing date. An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is 
eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the application or petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(I). USCIS cannot properly approve the petition at a future date after the petitioner or 
beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Regarding the impact of her published work, the petitioner stated: 
International trade in agricultural economics is very specialized, so there are 
relatively fewer number [sic] of publications and citations in this area. In this respect, 
I believe the number of citations I have is quite respectable . 
. . . Due to international circulation of most research work electronically through 
databases, downloaded statistics are another way to judge the popularity of one's 
work. ... [M]y listed works have been downloaded 3,633 times since their listing 
date indicating their popularity and acceptance. Intangible benefits are often not seen 
through citations but arise when parties such as farmers, producers, agribusinesses 
and government agencies consistently rely on research to keep abreast of new 
developments and to make decisions which is often the case with my work. 
There is no way from the record to determine how many of those who downloaded the petitioner's 
work went on to change their practices or policies as a result. 
The petitioner submitted parts of a September 2008 printout from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu, 
providing "AgEWcon Web Statistics - January 2001-May 2008." One submitted excerpt provided 
download statistics for 15 articles. One of the petitioner's articles showed 79 downloads. Twelve of 
the other 14 listed articles showed more than 79 downloads. Therefore, even if the number of 
downloads were proportional to the influence of the article, the fragment submitted by the petitioner 
would identify her work as among the least influential of the 15 articles listed. 
The director had asked the petitioner for evidence of cited articles that appeared after 2006. The 
petitioner, in response, showed recent citations of her work, but the cited articles by the petitioner (as 
opposed to the citing articles by others) all date from 2006 or earlier. 
The petitioner submitted two new witness 
(China) Audit University, stated: 
at Nanjing 
Page 10 
I consider [the pet~e experts in the international grains markets. As 
a co-author of the_"U.S. and World Economic Outlook" her work 
provides projections of production, consumption, stocks, and trade figures for major 
agricultural grains producers, exporters and importers in 37 countries. The impact of 
[the petitioner's] work is far reaching. She provides a thorough analysis of the world 
grain markets .... [The petitioner's] work has very importa[nt] implications in the 
area of energy policy .... [The petitioner's] perspective article on India and China's 
search for alternate ethanol sources provides a key insight as these countries play a 
very important role in the global market. 
stated: 
I know [the petitioner] through her work as an international grains analyst at _ 
which is recognized worldwide as one of the top commodity analysis organizations in 
the world .... I hold [the petitioner] in high regard and her work in the international 
trade area is highly beneficial not only to the academic community but also extremely 
useful to farmers, policy makers and other key decision makers. In addition [the 
petitioner's] technical reports and perspective articles provide an excellent insight on 
key agricultural trade and policy issues affecting US agriculture. 
Like the previous group of letters, the two letters quoted above contain the assertion that the 
petitioner is an influential figure in her field, but provide few specific details except to state that the 
petitioner worked for _which, in tum, produces influential publications. 
The director denied the petition on July 27, 2010, stating that the petitioner had not submitted 
objective evidence to distinguish herself from other qualified professionals in her field. The 
petitioner filed a motion to reopen and reconsider that decision, and submitted two further witness 
letters along with supporting background materials. coordinator of USDA 
International Agriculture Baseline Projections, discussed the role of and stated that the 
petitioner "provides market intelligence on key factors impacting gram markets and analyzes 
agricultural policies that affect production, consumption, prices and trade in 37 countries." _ 
_ did not claim deep familiarity with the petitioner individually, basing his comments instead 
on his overall experience wit~staff over the years. The implication is that, because_ 
serves an important purpose, the petitioner must, as a_ staffer, be an especially important 
figure in her field. 
The same implied argument is evident in the letter who 
discussed _ overall role and asserted that that the petitioner "was chosen from a highly 
competitive pool of national and international candidates" to perform work that "is highly 
specialized and requires years of experience." 
The director granted the petitioner's motion but again denied the petition on November 24, 2010, 
stating that the petitioner's motion failed to establish that USCIS should have approved the petition. 
Page 11 
The director did not dispute the intrinsic merit or national scope of the petitioner's occupation, but 
found that the petitioner had not distinguished herself from other _ researchers. 
On appeal, counsel states that the petitioner "submitted persuasive testimony from independent 
witnesses from a variety of prestigious public and private research institutions ... who consistently 
assert that [the petitioner's] advanced research will benefit the national interest to a substantially 
greater degree than would a U.S. worker with comparable qualifications." Most of the witnesses are, 
in fact, connected with either NDSU or ISU, and the remaining witnesses emphasized 
overall role rather than the petitioner's specific contributions thereto. _ whom counsel 
singles out as an independent witness, was the petitioner's classmate at Kansas State University. 
Counsel asserts: "Due to her original contributions and influence in the field, [the petitioner] was 
chosen to peer review the work of her colleagues." The record shows the petitioner's involvement in 
peer review, but there is no evidence that this is the result of the petitioner's "original contributions 
and influence in the field" rather than a general principle that researchers who produce work for peer 
review should reciprocate by reviewing work by others. 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Counsel cannot demonstrate the importance of 
the petitioner's work simply by showing that it took place and then declaring it to be important, or 
by concluding that "her work could not be replicated by another available U.S. worker with 
comparable credentials." 
Counsel claims that the petitioner's published output and citation rate are unusual in her specialty, 
but produces no evidence to support such a claim. The petitioner has not addressed the director's 
observation that there do not appear to be any independent citations of work that the petitioner 
published after 2006, several years before the petition's late 2009 filing date. This observation is 
directly relevant to the assertion that the petitioner continues to produce influential work. 
Frequently in the appeal, counsel stresses the importance of the petitioner's work with _ at 
ISU. The most recent correspondence from counsel is a change of address notice, indicating that the 
petitioner has left Iowa and now resides in Virginia. USCIS records place the petitioner at the Union 
of Concerned Scientists. The available evidence, therefore, indicates that the petitioner has left ISU. 
This change appears to be significant, given that the petitioner's employment at ISU had formed the 
backbone of many of counsel's claims on appeal. Certainly, the petitioner can no longer argue that 
she will continue to serve the national interest through her future work at ISU. When reporting the 
petitioner's change of address, counsel neglected to include evidence to show that the petitioner's 
current work at the Union of Concerned Scientists parallels her prior _ work. The AAO 
acknowledges that the petitioner seeks a waiver of the job offer requirement. At the same time, 
when the waiver claim itself rests on the petitioner's work for a particular employer, then a change 
of employment necessarily affects the overall claim. 
Page 12 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of ajob 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, 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 profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
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. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.