dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Banking

ldentifyfng data &l&d to 
prevent cleady unwarranted 
invasion of perwtasl privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
A< 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 
2 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be dlsrnissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 3 1 153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks 
employment as a "banking specialist." 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. 
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 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, 
1Olst Cong., 1st Sess., 1 1 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), published at 
56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
Page 3 
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 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. 21 5 (Comm. 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 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. 
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. 
In his initial filing, the petitioner submits documentation of his academic and professional credentials, such as 
a Master of Business Administration degree from Tbilisi State University in the Republic of Georgia and real 
estate training certificates from Shorebank Advisory Services. The petitioner also submits two witness letters. 
deputy program manager at shorebank Advisory services, states: 
I met [the petitioner] when he was working for JSC "Bank of Georgia" (BOG) in the capacity 
of Credit Officer and our company was appointed as the consulting company for Georgian 
Real Estate development program. . . . 
[The petitioner], among seven credit officers, had been chosen from the different branches of 
BOG as the best ones. His primary responsibility included finding appropriate customers, 
conduced pre-financing interviews, checking customers actual monthly incomes, drawing 
memo's and cash flow, defending projects on credit committee, checking after disbursement 
borrower's financial condition and so on. . . . 
During that period [the petitioner] demonstrated an ability and desire to grow professionally 
and personally. On many occasions [the petitioner] has proved his problem solving abilities 
by finding creative solutions to the many challenges of commercial lending to individuals and 
legal entities in complex environment of an emerging market economy. 
[The petitioner] is a hardworking person pursuing the goal of becoming a high qualified 
professional in the local and global economy. [The petitioner] has impressed me as a 
disciplined, diligent and responsible person with a keen drive to keep abreast of new 
development in the financial field in Georgia and abroad. I believe that at this point [the 
petitioner] has appropriate educational background, good work experience, communication 
skills and an exposure to the Western practices, which will be a true asset to any country or 
company he decided to connect his future. 
(Sic). 
 deputy general director of the Bank of Georgia, states: 
[The petitioner] worked with Bank of Georgia, Tbilisi from August 1998. [The petitioner] is 
a competent and committed person, who confidently accomplishes whatever he sets out to do. 
His ability to reflect critically and creatively on complex issues, his intellectual curiosity and 
initiative, and his interpersonal communication skills are highly developed. The quality of 
his academic preparation can be described as very good. He is a young man with a strong 
sense of discipline and responsibility. He possesses both motivation and ability to become an 
innovative and dedicated professional. 
The letters quoted above do not indicate that the petitioner stands out from others in his field to an extent that 
would justify a national interest waiver. Rather, they appear to be little more than reference letters that one 
might present to a prospective employer. 
The director issued a request for evidence on May 23, 2005, instructing the petitioner to submit additional 
evidence to meet the guidelines set forth in Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation. The director 
stated: "The impact of an individual economist working in a specific area is so diluted at the national level as 
to be negligible. The record does not show that the beneficiary's efforts will impact the nation to a more 
significant degree than others who are similarly employed." The director also requested "evidence that sets 
the beneficiary apart from other highly qualified economist [sic]." 
In response, the petitioner states: 
During . . . my activity at Georgia's leading financial institute - Bank of Georgia, I tried to 
examine my innovations and know-how methods in business administration. My innovations 
were highly appreciated by top managers of Bank of Georgia and I was advanced to higher 
positions very quickly. . . . [M]y salary was unusually high . . . 4-5 times higher than average 
national level. . . . 
The petitioner submits evidence relating to his remuneration, training, and membership in professional 
associations. These factors are all means to support a claim of exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(k)(3)(ii). From the plain wording of the statute and regulations, it is clear that exceptional ability is 
not prima,facie evidence of eligibility for the waiver; aliens of exceptional ability are, generally, subject to the 
job offer requirement. Therefore, it would serve no productive purpose to discuss this evidence in detail. 
The petitioner adds that he has started a company, 
 testing my theoretical ideas in 
economics." 
 The petitioner also has a "job offer 
 General Contractor on [a] very 
promising position.'' Documents in the record show that the petitioner incorporate in June 
2005, six months after he filed the petition in December 2004. The type of business is identified as 
"management & design." Establishing one's own corporation does not cause one to be eligible for the 
waiver, but even if it were otherwise, the company did not exist when the petitioner filed the petition. The 
petitioner filed the founding documents shortly after the director issued the request for evidence. A petitioner 
may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently 
deficient petition conform to CIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169 (Comm. 1998), and 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45 (Reg. Cornrn. 1971), which require that beneficiaries seeking employment- 
based immigrant classification must possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing date of the visa petition. 
The same objection applies to the August 1, 2005 job offer from 
 The contractor's offer of a 
managerial position to the petitioner does not, on its face, 
 a national interest waiver. 
There is no indication that the petitioner's work would have national impact, as opposed to simply advancing the 
interests of that one particular private company. The petitioner cannot show that he merits a waiver of the job 
offer requirement by showing that he has a job offer. 
owner o "a construction company that does rehabilitation and renovation 
Philadelphia area," states that the petitioner "has worked for me as a supervisor on several 
projects already, and I have found his ability to facilitate and coordinate workers and scheduling to be a great 
asset." ~tates that the petitioner's skills have led him to contemp 
m 
xpansion of his business 
that he would not otherwise have considered. As with ~r letter, M 
 letter establishes that the 
petitioner's slulls are attractive to a prospective employer, but if this were a basis for a waiver, then the only 
aliens subject to the job offer requirement would be those who have little to offer to prospective employers. 
We note that both of the above employers are building contractors, whereas the petitioner had previously 
indicated that he seeks employment in "management in food industry, banking specialist, real estate loan 
officer." The petitioner's employment prospects therefore appear to be outside of his area of claimed 
specialized expertise. 
The petitioner states that he is responsible for several innovations, but he specifies only one: "The last and 
most important innovations designed by me were a new approach and methodology for so called "Business 
Games." 1 would not go deep into technical nuances of my methodology but it is significant that several 
independent tests showed considerable improvement of outcome." 
 no documentation 
of these "independent tests." He does, however, submit a letter fro 
 president of the Georgian 
Academy of Economical Sciences, who states that the petitioner's "new approach for so called 'Business 
Games,"' consisting of the "replacement of traditional scheme of business team, consisting from four 
different kinds of managers (lead 
Mrm 
executive and ideologist), to three-member team (opponent, 
proponent and customer) [sic] ." 
 asserts that the petitioner's "extraordinary ability and talents are 
critical to the field, and he has opened up an important area of business modeling." The record is silent as to 
the extent to which others have adopted the petitioner's method of business modeling. 
The director denied the petition, acknowledging the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's field but finding that the 
petitioner has not established the national scope of his work or that the petitioner, in particular, offers a 
Page 6 
prospective national benefit that outweighs the protection of U.S. workers inherent in labor certification. The 
director stated that the waiver request was apparently "based in large part on the beneficiary's training, 
education and work experience," areas that the labor certification process already takes into account. The 
director concluded that the petitioner failed to "persuasively demonstrate that the beneficiary's individual 
contributions as an economist in Philadelphia is [sic] beyond the capabilities of any number of trained 
professionals in his field." 
 The director's decision is consistent with published precedent. 
 General 
attestations regarding the skills or qualifications of a given alien do not, in and of themselves, establish 
eligibility for the waiver. See Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation at 220. 
itioner states that the director "ignored the Independent Expert opinion of Academician 
Prof On liiUm . . . Maybe the Agency is unaware [of] what it means to be [a] member of [the] Georgian 
Academy of Sciences." The petitioner submits background information about the Georgian Academy of 
Sciences, and about the source of his "Independent 
 information spells the name 
P 
ather than These materials establish 
 credentials (which the director 
ad not questioned), but the material issue here is not Prof. 
 standing in the field, but that of the 
petitioner. 
The petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider the importance of the petitioner's contributions to 
"business games theory," but the petitioner has not independently established the importance of those 
contributions, nor has he even shown that U.S. businesses rely on "business games" to the same extent as 
Georgian companies. letter does not establish that the petitioner has made an important 
contribution to economics o at witness merely expressed his own opinion, saying: "I believe that 
the initial result of [the] new conceptual approach to business modeling will have a national impact." This is 
not evidence of national impact, but rather a speculative expectation that such impact may result in the future. 
Conjecture of this type is too tenuous to form a reliable basis for a waiver. In terms of the subsequent fruition 
of the petitioner's studies, we reiterate here that the petitioner's employment prospects in the United States 
have been limited to management positions with construction contractors.' 
The petitioner asserts that the director "wrongly concluded that [a] tri-language speaking manager with 
excellent education and experience is only [a] case of local area importance." The petitioner contends that, 
with perhaps five million Russian-speaking immigrants in the United States, his expertise is national in scope. 
(The petitioner offers no figures on the number of Georgian-speaking immigrants.) By the petitioner's logic, 
an English-speaking immigrant has access to a potential client base of hundreds of millions; but this does not 
convey national scope to every English-speaking businessperson. It is not clear how the petitioner's ability to 
speak three languages would qualify him for a waiver. The petitioner's language skills may distinguish him 
from the majority of U.S. businesspersons, but in this sense "distinguish" does not necessarily mean 
"elevate." Because most of the world population speaks a native language other than English, it would be 
unrealistic for us to find that fluency in a language other than English is a compelling factor for a national 
Absent evidence that such managers are required to hold bachelor's degrees, this work arguably compromises the 
petitioner's status as a member of the professions as 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(k)(2) defines that term, but further discussion of 
this issue would not affect the outcome of this decision. 
Page 7 
interest ~aiver.~ Being a businessman is not inherently grounds for a waiver, and speaking Russian is not 
inherently grounds for a waiver; the petitioner offers no persuasive reason why being a Russian-speaking 
businessman should be grounds for a waiver. 
The petitioner states: "I began to realize my goals by creating my own company." As noted elsewhere in this 
decision, the petitioner did not create this company until after the director inform 
initial filing was deficient. If the petitioner remains convinced that his work with 
him for a national interest waiver, the proper course of action would be for the petitioner to file a new 
petition. As it stands, the petitioner has not even explained, with any specificity, what does; 
the record establishes the company's existence, and little else. 
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 £rom the requirement of a job 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. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer accompanied by a 
labor certification issued by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2 
 Compare Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation at 221, which rejected the argument that an alien's 
engineer's familiarity with the metric system (which is the dominant system of measurement in much of the world) was a 
strong factor in favor of approving the waiver.