dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Author And Lecturer

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-A-B-A-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: FEB. 9, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an author and lecturer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. The 
appeal will be dismissed. 
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 a waiver of a job offer would be in the national interest. On 
appeal, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
I. LAW 
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. 
Matter of M-A-B-A-
II. ISSUE 
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." Matter of New York State Dep 't ofTransp. (NYSDOT), 
22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998), set forth several factors which must be 
considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish 
that he seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Id. at 217. Next, a petitioner must 
demonstrate that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Id. Finally, the petitioner seeking the 
waiver must show that he 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. 
The Petitioner has established that his work as an author and lecturer is in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit that the proposed benefits of his self-improvement books and motivational lectures 
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. 
Although the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must show 
that his past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's subjective assurance that he 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 petitioner, rather than to facilitate the entry of an individual with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. Id. 
Furthermore, eligibility for the waiver must rest with the petitioner's own qualifications rather than 
with the position sought. Assertions regarding the overall importance of a petitioner's area of 
expertise cannot suffice to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. Id. at 220. At issue is 
whether the petitioner's contributions in the field are of such significance that he merits the special 
benefit of a national interest waiver, a benefit separate and distinct from the visa classification he 
seeks. 
A petitioner must exhibit a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field as 
a whole. I d. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, 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. 
III. FACTS AND ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on March 6, 2014. The 
Petitioner submitted documentation reflecting his televised appearances, motivational speeches at 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-A-B-A-
various public forums, and authorship of multiple books and articles concerning social interactions, 
family life, and financial success. The Director determined that the Petitioner's impact and influence on 
his field did not satisfY the third prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis. 
In a statement provided on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that his "written works and [ 
] lectures focus on 
social harmony and the similarities in cultures that help form success in the privacy of the home and in 
the workplace." The Petitioner further states: "My bicultural approach, my work experiences, my 
educational background and my life experiences in the Middle East make my written works like no 
other's." In addition, the Petitioner indicates that his "work, if disseminated in the United States, can 
make a huge difference in getting [his] readers" closer to finding "peace, emotional healing, and 
empathy." 
The record includes various letters of support describing the Petitioner 's human development work 
and skills as a writer and lecturer.1 For example, Former Dean of the 
Faculty of Arts, Egypt, asserted that the Petitioner wrote books that "contributed 
to solving a wide range of youth problems. In addition, he conducted many lectures in most of the 
Egyptian Universities and major firms." also stated the Petitioner had a "private centre 
for providing specialized courses in these fields which set him as a training asset to many 
universities and big corporations in Egypt." Although noted that the Petitioner shared 
his self-improvement guidance with university students, corporate employees, and others, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that his books, lectures, and training sessions have influenced the field 
at a level sufficient to waive the job offer requirement. For example, there is no indication that the 
Petitioner's programs and literature have affected practices in the self-improvement industry or have 
otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
Head of the Psychology Department, asserted: 
"[The Petitioner] offers human development lectures, books, newspaper articles and a regular 
Thursday TV show ' In this program, he offers a lot of ad vices [sic] and concentrates 
on the most complicated problems which face the Egyptian families on a daily basis." The record, 
however, does not include evidence indicating that the Petitioner's work has resulted in significant 
lifestyle changes for his viewers, readers, and audiences; has received favorable reviews from 
prominent psychologists , sociologists, and financial planners; 
or has otherwise affected the field as a 
whole. also mentioned that the Petitioner has established "several major training 
companies" and organized "international conferences that hosted internationally recognized experts 
in training," but did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner 's work has significantly 
impacted the field. 
Professor of Hebrew Language, Egypt, indicated 
that the Petitioner, in conjunction with his training companies, has hosted "training Gurus" such as 
In addition, mentioned that the 
1 
We discuss only a sampling of these letters, but have reviewed and considered each one. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-A-B-A-
Petitioner has organized "several youth assemblies and conduct[ ed] multiple social programs on 
TV." The record, however, does not reflect that the Petitioner's work has had a substantial effect on 
the self-improvement industry. 
Professor of Turkish Language, Egypt, 
stated that the Petitioner's "commitment, good mam1ers, courtesy and personal skills in dealing with 
others in addition to his enlightened mind, practical and scientific experience has [sic] contributed to 
a great extent in developing youth awareness and skills through his distinguished courses, lectures 
and books." He did not, however, provide information on how the Petitioner's youth programs have 
affected the field as a whole. 
A January 2014 letter from , Chairman of the Board, 
book publisher, noted that the Petitioner authored 
and that "more than 150000" copies of each book were printed. 
February 2014 letter from Chairman of the Board, 
Egyptian book publisher, indicated that the Petitioner wrote 
. an Egyptian 
Similarly, a 
another 
and that "more than 
120000" copies of each book were printed. In addition, the Petitioner submitted copies of the 
aforementioned books. 2 While and mentioned the number of copies in 
print, they did not indicate the number of books actually sold or provide an explanation regarding 
how the Petitioner's writings have influenced fields of human development or philosophy. 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner provided a November 2014 
letter from asserting that the Petitioner "is one of the most renowned writers and life 
coaches in Egypt" and that his "books have been distributed in all 22 Arab countries, as well as 
being exhibited in most book fairs and exhibits in the Middle East." further stated that 
has "published a total of 8 books for [the Petitioner] with [ ] total net sales of 
$1219500" and that the Petitioner "makes 20% in profit of the total sales." According to the 
information from the Petitioner earned $243,900 from his book sales, but there is no 
documentary evidence demonstrating that his published work has influenced the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner 's response included a December 2014 letter from an 
English! Arabic translator residing in Florida . indicated that she has recently worked 
with the Petitioner in translating his book to English and that she expects 
"the book will be published in the next few weeks." In addition , noted that she is 
currently in the process of translating more of the Petitioner's books from Arabic to English. The 
Petitioner also provided a letter from a photographer, stating that he took 
2 We note that the Petitioner 's books do not have an International Standard Book Number (ISBN). The ISBN " is a 13-
digit number that uniquely identifies books and book-like products published internationally ." See 
http://www.isbn.org/standards /home/isbn/us/isbnqa .asp, accessed on January 15, 2016, copy incorporated into the record 
of proceedings. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-A-B-A-
photographs of the Petitioner for and two other of his books that were 
"coming out in early 2015." and statements indicating that the 
English language versions of and two other books would be published in 
2015 do not constitute evidence that the Petitioner's translated work was already influential at the 
time of filing the Form I-140. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, 
we will not consider any English language versions of the Petitioner's books that were not yet 
published as of the filing date and, thus had not been disseminated in the field, to establish his 
eligibility at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner also submitted several letters of support from his personal acquaintances in the 
Pennsylvania area describing him as a devoted family man, skilled communicator, 
effective problem solver, and positive motivator. While the letters reflect that the Petitioner is 
esteemed by members of the local community, they do not indicate that his work has had a national 
effect or has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
The RFE response included photographic reproductions of the Petitioner 's awards in the Arabic 
language (such as those from and , in Egypt), 
but they were not accompanied by properly certified English language translations. Although the 
Petitioner submitted a December 2014 notarized statement from the translator asserting that "the 
documents translated in [the Petitioner's] portfolio are correct true translations," the translator did 
not identify the specific documents or indicate that she was competent to translate from the foreign 
language into English. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. §103.2(b)(3) provides in pertinent part: 
Translations. Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS shall 
be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has 
certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she 
is competent to translate from the foreign language into English. 
As the existing English language translations of the awards in Arabic were not properly certified, 
they are of limited probative value. Regardless, while particularly significant awards may serve as 
evidence of the Petitioner's impact and influence on the field, he has not demonstrated that the 
awards he received have more than regional or institutional significance. There is no evidence 
showing that the Petitioner's awards are indicative of his impact on the field of human development 
or the self-improvement industry as a whole. 
In addition, the Petitioner provided various ce11ificates of participation and completion for training 
courses and seminars relating to his professional development. While taking courses and attending 
seminars are ways to increase one's professional knowledge, there is nothing inherent in these 
activities to establish eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a June 2015 letter from indicating that she has 
translated four of the Petitioner 's books for publication by and that "[e]ach book is 
unique in its own way and tackles universal subjects that all humans from all different nationalities, 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-A-B-A-
races, creeds, belief systems, and backgrounds." further states: "What is truly 
peculiar about [the Petitioner's] ideas is that they reflect a different perspective to U.S. readers. He 
brings the wisdom he learned through his travels, readings, and experiences to the reader while he 
bridges gaps between the cultures." While comments about the uniqueness of the 
Petitioner's books and the peculiarity of his ideas, she does not provide any examples of their 
influence on the field, or explain how his work will benefit the nation to a greater extent than other 
U.S. authors working in the human development field or self-improvement industry. 
The Petitioner also provides a May 2015 letter from Marketing Consultant, 
Indiana, indicating that his company has a "business relationship and partnership with [the 
Petitioner] on the upcoming launch and promotion of his first U.S. published book 
" 3 further states: "[The Petitioner] has invested heavily in the marketing 
campaign for his book, and later this year will begin a Publicity Campaign, promotional, and book 
signing tour here in the United States and Canada, which will culminate with book signings at 
several There is no documentary evidence 
showing, however, that the Petitioner's work has already influenced the field as a whole. Again, 
eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. at 49. expectations for the Petitioner's publicity campaign in the latter 
part of2015 are not evidence ofhis eligibility at the time of filing. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 
F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to 
uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to 
accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionable"). The submission of 
reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may 
evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. !d. 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"). As the submitted reference letters did not establish that the 
Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole, they do not demonstrate his eligibility for the 
national interest waiver. 
3 ' a division of 
positive message." See 
incorporated into the record of proceedings. 
is a self-publishing company specializing in self-help books with a 
accessed on January 15, 2016, copy 
Matter of M-A-B-A-
The Petitioner asserts that his "multi-cultural experiences and the content of his works make him and 
them unique so as to overcome the need for a job offer." Any assertion that a petitioner possesses 
useful skills and experiences, or a "unique background" relates to whether similarly-trained workers 
are available in the United States and is an issue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of 
Labor through the labor certification process. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. Furthermore, even 
considering the Petitioner's self-employment, the inapplicability or unavailability of a labor 
certification cannot be viewed as sufficient cause for a national interest waiver; he still must 
demonstrate that he will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than do others in 
his field. !d. at 218, n.5. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole or that he will otherwise serve the national 
interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same 
minimum qualifications. The Petitioner has not shown that his past record of achievement is at a 
level sufficient to waive the job offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa 
classification he seeks. 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced 
degree professional or alien of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Although a petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of 
national acclaim, he must have "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of 
influence on the field as a whole." !d. at 219, n.6. 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 appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofM-A-B-A-, ID# 15163(AAO Feb. 9, 2016)