dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship and Immigrati on Services 
Admini strative Appeals Office {AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. , N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JUl 0 2 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http: //www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~Ron Rosenbe 
L Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before us at the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will dismiss 
the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under 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 business and as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a business development 
manager. 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 an alien of exceptional ability in business and 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 and supporting 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 director found that the petitioner qualifies for the underlying immigrant classification, and denied 
the petition based solely on the issue of 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, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897 , 60900 (Nov. 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 seekjng 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. 
In re New York State Dep 't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. ld. 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. !d. at 217-18. 
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 assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included 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. Id. 
The USCIS 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 I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on December 17, 2012. In 
an accompanying statement, the petitioner claimed "over ten years of professional experience in the 
field of business development consulting with over 100 projects certified by at 
' as well as other "projects that have had a huge impact on [the] lives of 
people across the EU [European Union] countries." The petitioner stated: 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[M]y vast expertise, in-depth knowledge about very specific fields and industries as 
well as my hand-on experience in handling strategic issues during project execution 
makes me a valuable contributor in many areas of substantial, intrinsic merit such as 
health care, nature preservation, providing care for the under privileged, [and] crisis 
management in times of natural disasters .... 
My work in the field of business development [and] strategy execution provides 
innovative solutions for businesses to grow. Throughout my professional career, I 
have consistently broken new ground and outperformed my peers. In addition to that 
[I] have a profound expertise in the financial mechanisms and regulations of the 
European Union which is a very unique skills set combination 
virtually impossible to 
be replaced. 
The petitioner cited an example of her past work: 
My work in disaster prevention and crisis management in times of natural disasters 
goes way back. The heavy rainfall and floods that have occurred in in the 
period May-August 2005 have left substantial devastating consequences on the 
infrastructure and [t]he regional and local economies. The rainfalls have caused 
extensive flooding and matyrial damages . 
. . 
. (P]lease find enclosed one of the projects I personally devised and consulted [for] 
the affected municipality. The project received external funding from [the] EU and 
had [an] enormous effect on the entire area. It is one of the very few projects, the 
details of which were not protected by a non-disclosure agreement; hence, why I am 
able to share the details of this project with you. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of a "Grant Application Form" for a "Post-Flood Rehabilitation and 
Relief Scheme," which the petitioner claims to have filed with the Ministry of Regional 
Development and Public Works in 2006. The document is mostly in English. The petitioner ' s name 
does not appear on the document; the cover page identifies the applicant as the "Municipality of 
(variantly spelled' ). The project described in the proposal would benefit "the 
population of estimated at 14[,]739 people according to the current statistical dat[a] base." 
The record includes no documentary evidence that the grant application was approved, or that the 
project led to the results outlined in the application. The petitioner did not explain how a grant 
application seeking funds for a public works project relates to her claimed abilities in business 
development. 
The petitioner stated: "I have enclosed testimonial letters from various businesses owners who will 
use my services once the [waiver] is granted. The broad spectrum of my expertise and the ability to 
help many different businesses to achieve significant growth is the main [reason] why I cannot be 
tied down to any specific employer." 
(b)(6)
rage 
director of business development at 
Germany, stated: 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The petitioner] was working under my direct supervlSion . . . as a business 
development manager for over five years. She focuses her attention on exploiting all 
business opportunities that are presented to the organization and has [an] innovative 
approach in managing complex issues and identifying the best options available. Her 
knowledge of the regulations within the EU is rather unique and detailed. She could 
be very valuable to companies in the US that want to establish business partnerships 
with Europe .... 
[The petitioner] has a solid track record of achieving substantial results while working 
for She was a key figure in submitting or execution of over 100 projects 
and formal proposals. Some of the most notable projects are: 
The largest e-government project in : Integrated, administrative services on 
local and centralized level and rendenng publiC services[.] 
Optimization of the Business Registry of the Registry Agency of Republic of 
[.] 
managing partner at (an "asset management institution 
focusing on China Private Equity market"), did not explain how she knew the petitioner or was 
familiar with her work. Ms. stated that the petitioner "must be allowed to offer her consulting 
work in the United States to help companies in distress achieve successful turnaround." Ms. 
did not describe the petitioner's past record, if any, with distressed companies. Instead, she stated 
that the petitioner's "unique combination of management techniques ... , expertise in emerging 
markets and international practice with diverse businesses makes her extremely valuable." 
The remainilli! witnesses all know the petitioner from he_r~_a_rticipation i the 
at in 2012 . Professor 
founder of the statea: 
[The petitioner] was a student of mine in the 
... [which] was designed to equip functional managers wit the advanced deciSlOn­
making and execution skills they need to excel as multinational managers with the 
advanced decision-making skills they need to excel as multifaceted leaders. . . . 
Created for managers and functional specialists with approximately 10 years of work 
experience, admits only those individuals with excellent prospects for 
leadership .... 
[The petitioner] was an outstanding participant i 
(b)(6)
!'age D 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
I firmly believe that [the petitioner's] background and knowledge in the areas of 
business development, crisis management and strategy are a unique blend which sets 
her apart from most of her professional peers. She has not only brainstormed difficult 
conceptual leadership problems but has also helped develop state-of-the-art 
knowledge regarding complex strategy tools. In difficult times for the Americ an 
economy, it is crucial for our US companies to secure existing and create new jobs. 
Prof. offered general praise for the petitioner's skills, but did not establish what the 
petitioner-s efforts to date have done "to secure existing and create new jobs ." 
portfolio director for the stated: 
As head of the Admissions Committee for all 
by [the petitioner's] professional expertise .... 
candidates , I was truly impressed 
Her unique combination of management techniques obtained from the EU funding 
field, impressive educational background, and expertise in emerging markets and 
international practice with large scale diverse projects makes her an extreme! y 
valuable asset in these significant times of strengthening the American economy. 
Ms. stated that the petitioner "has collaborated on numerous successful projects 
internationally ," but did not identify or describe the projects or claim any personal knowledge about 
them. 
secretary general of the 
was among the petitioner's classmates in the He stated: "I believe [the petitioner] should be 
allowed to offer her work in the United States as her knowledge in business trends, global network 
and exposure to complex international projects makes her extremely valuable .... Her level of 
expertise is highly sought after and essential to achieve the goals for financial stabilization." 
co-founder and co-chief executive officer (CEO) of "one of the 
largest med1a companies in the Middle East," "met [the petitioner] while participating in the 
Mr. stated: 
During the Program she was my partner in devising strategy road map for my 
company and this is how I became well acquainted with her distinctive management 
consulting expertise. . 
. . The tremendous in-depth knowledge she possesses in so 
many diverse fields as IT consulting, social media, international relations, finance, 
general management, e-justice, health care, etc. due to the large number of projects 
she has been involved with speaks for itself. 
executive director for business development at 
"wor ea wiTh [the petitioner] on various projects and case studies" in the Mr. stated: "I 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page ·1 
would rank [the petitioner] as one of the best colleagues I have ever had," and that the petitioner 
"distinguished herself by consistently submitting exceptionally well-researched and well-written 
reports." 
head of community management at 
stated: 
[The petitioner] was my classmate at and I had the 
opportunity to work on diverse projects with her during the entire Executive 
Education .... 
Her work on numerous international multi million dollar projects has equipped her 
with impeccable expertise and reputation in so many diverse fields that it is 
practically impossible to replace her unique skills set not only in [the] US but on a 
global scale. 
managing partner at 
of the petitioner's classmates. Mr. 
but did not elaborate. 
chief revenue officer for 
networking groups." He stated: 
was another 
praised the petitioner's "combination of strengths" 
met the petitioner "via 
[The petitioner] is well connected globally and has contacts and connections across 
the world that would be very beneficial in the business development arena. Her 
training and education positions make her an impact player that will super charge 
global growth efforts for my company and many other US businesses. She has been a 
strategic advisor for me and has opened doors for my company via her network of 
relationships in China, Middle East, Europe, and Asia. I would be delighted to use 
her services once her EB2-NIW petition is approved . 
. . . Her accomplishments to date have far exceeded those of the vast majority of her 
peers as evidenced by her accomplishments. In addition to that, she has a very 
impressive rolodex of contacts in the international business elite which will easily 
help her establish successful partnerships for US companies with foreign 
corporations. 
president and CEO of "met [the petitioner] through the 
network and ... was impressed by her professional experience and truly unique corporate 
development expertise in extremely diverse fields." Mr. stated an intention to "use her services 
on relevant projects if her EB2-NIW gets approved." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page~ 
The witnesses quoted above praised the petitioner's accomplishments, but did not provide any 
significant details about what those accomplishments were. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an invitation to attend the on 
November 21. 2012, and copy of a pre-meeting message sent to participants in the 6"' Annual 
held on May 28, 2012. 
the director issued a request for evidence on June 3, 2013. The director instructed the petitioner to 
submit evidence to establish that the benefit from her employment will be national in scope, and that 
she has "a past record of specific prior achievement that justifies projections of future benefit to the 
national interest." The director stated that "[l]etters of support alone are not sufficient" to establish 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. In response, the petitioner submitted additional witness 
letters and related documentation. 
The petitioner stated: 
In addition to my extensive consulting career, during the at 
I have been a student of the inventor ot the 
Professor The in-depth study of this unique strategy management 
tool compl[ e ]mented my existent proficiency in strategic management and 
contributed to an even better approach when consulting international companies. 
This formed a very rare combination of skills set, knowledge and international 
expertise which put to work in consulting various companies will inevitably benefit 
the national interest of USA. This very same combination cannot be replaced by 
others because of my unique background executing EU funded projects which 
excellent solutions can be replicated in US, adopted best practices from the corporate 
world during my Internship, acquired leadership techniques while CEO of a fast 
developing company and refined management and strategic consulting abilities as a 
participant in best in class 
type program at 
The petitioner then described the method in detail. The petitioner did not claim 
to have developed the method. An alien's job-related training in a new method, whatever its 
importance, cannot be considered to be an achievement or contribution comparable to the innovation 
of that new method. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221 n.7. 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 U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
Labor. Id. at 221. Furthermore, there is no indication that familiarity with is 
particularly rare in the U.S. business community. The petitioner stated: "The 
[was] first proposed in ... 1992 " and that "more than 50 percent of the Fortune 1000 companies use 
a version of . . . '' including such maior corporations as 
and These assertions indicate that the is alreaay in wiaespread use 
in the United States. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Regarding her 
track record in business, the petitioner stated: 
I was agQointed to be CEO of one of the fastest developing consulting companies, 
at the age of 25 .... I personally supervised and actively 
participated in the preparation and consulting of 100+ diverse projects for corporate 
and public customers .... 
The projects I personally have devised or consulted and the results from their 
impler:nentation have been cited more than several hundred times in local newspapers 
and TV station[s], national newspapers and TV stations, prominent business 
magazines, official government newsletters and announcements and official media 
releases of the 
I have achieved major accomplishments exceeding my peers' given the scope and 
imQortance of the projects I have worked on. As a business development manager at 
I devised and implemented [a] new strategic direction which led to [a] 700% 
revenue increase. Our team implemented the largest e-government project in the 
country which developed e-services for over 2 million people. 
The petitioner claimed "several hundred" media stories regarding her work , but the record does not 
document any of them. The petitioner's unsupported claims do not meet the burden of proof See 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
Professor stated: 
Participants in [the program have been selected by their employers as having 
the potential to advance to become a senior executive. I was a member of the 
teaching faculty and could observe that [the petitioner] was an active and informed 
participant, who contributed a great deal to the class discussion and learning. 
now an associate professor at previously taught business 
strategy in the He stated that the petitioner "was a very good student, indeed one of the best" 
in his classes , and praised her "strong knowledge of EU regulations and EU funding. " He did not 
claim any personal knowledge of the petitioner's claimed business achievements, stating instead: 
"My understanding is that [the petitioner] is a business professional with over ten years of 
international experience and world-class expertise in the area of business development, crisis 
management and strategy." 
anticorruption expert at the 
stated: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
I met [the petitioner] while working on EU funded projects back in 2004 and was 
truly impressed by the unique combination of educational background, experience 
and proficiency she possesses in many diverse fields. She has been involved in 
numerous significant projects which had positive effect on ... millions of people as 
direct and indirect beneficiaries .... 
Her accomplishments to date have far exceeded those of the vast majority of her peers 
as evidenced by her achievements and successful execution of the projects she 
consulted. 
I would definitely classify her as one of the most excellent experts in the field of 
strategic consulting, e-justice, healthcare and EU and international regulations .... 
[H]er specific knowledge and expertise are incredibly hard to find within the 
European Union and dare say impossible to find in the US. 
The onlv witness to describe a specific project was 
who stated: 
chairman of the 
I met [the petitioner] in 2007 when she had played a significant role in the execution 
of the largest e-government project in 
This project received widespread affirmative media publicity in the entire country as 
it created e-services for several million beneficiaries and its positive impact on the 
everyday life of people, local businesses and government organizations was 
enormous. 
Later on I had the pleasure of working with [the petitioner] as she was an external 
strategic consultant in the implication of the project managed by the 
... The project was implemented in 14 municipalities and it aimed [for] 
improvement of the transparency and efficiency of the public procurement process 
and implemented best practice through cooperation with municipalities in 
[The petitioner] has an impeccable reputation [as a] highly skilled expert who 
contributed to the successful implementation of numerous EU funded projects in 
significant fields, as mentioned above, and very diverse corporate and government 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
strategic management expertise which is extremely valuable in times of strengthening 
the world economy. 
Mr. did not describe the nature of the petitioner's role in the projects identified above, and 
the record contains no evidence about the projects or their results that would identify the petitioner's 
contributions or establish that she was integral to their success. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an offer from 
signed by to employ the petitioner "as a consultant for our 
initiative." The date of the offer is July 24, 2013. The petitioner also submitted a copy of a 
"Consulting Agreement I Project" from executed 
on August 15, 2013. The petitioner did not establish that these offers differ significantly from 
routine consulting agreements, and the existence of demand for the petitioner's services is not, on its 
face, evidence of eligibility for the national interest waiver. Furthermore, even if the agreements 
were persuasive evidence of eligibility , they both date from after the petition's December 2012 filing 
date and the June 2013 issuance of the request for evidence. An applicant or petitioner must 
establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request. 8 
C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(1). Therefore, subsequent events cannot cause a previously ineligible alien to 
become eligible after the filing date. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg ' I Comm ' r 
1971). 
The director denied the petition on October 11, 2013. The director discussed the petitioner's 
evidence and quoted from some of the witness letters, but found that the petitioner had submitted 
insufficient evidence and information to warrant approval of the petition. The director 
acknowledged the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's occupation, and found that the benefit can be 
national in scope, but the director concluded that the petitioner had not met the third prong of the 
NYSDOT national interest test, concerning the petitioner's impact on her field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that she "completed the most restigious program in the world for 
business minds with leadership potential at Eligibility for the waiver 
rests not on a quantified threshold of experience or education, but rather a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. See NYSDOT , 
22 I&N Dec. at 219 n. 6. 
The petitioner states: "My services in a highly sought-after area of business were preferred by a 
W A based US employer. I was chosen over big consulting companies because of the novelty of 
t e approach in developing 
The petitioner submits a letter from president and CEO of who states: "The 
process of developing effective has some particular steps known to evidently a very 
few in the consulting circles . . .. The search for a consultant took significant time." The appeal also 
includes evidence that appears to contradict the claim that her expertise in s a rare, 
distinguishing feature. The petitioner submits a copy of a September 2007 New ark Times article, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
which includes this statistic: "the 
was being used in about 57 percent of international comnanies bv 2004." The petitioner had 
previously identified several large corporations that use the These facts are 
inconsistent with the uncorroborated claim that the process includes "some particular steps known to 
evidently a very few in the consulting circles." 
A second letter from repeats assertions from the witness ' s earlier letter, 
adding what she called ··some speclllc examples of [the petitioner's] outstanding management 
consulting career , her roles and the significant impact the projects had on the national economy ." 
Ms. stated that the petitioner "was a member of the executive project management 
team of the largest e-government project in to date," and identified three projects : 
"Integrated , administrative services on local an centralized level and rendering public services" 
(Ministry of State Administration and Administrative Reform); "Development of the economy : 
support for the effectiveness of the companies and provision of sufficient business environment" 
(Ministry of Economy) ; and "Establishment of National e-Health portal and introduction of personal 
e-health record for 40,000 employees of the state administration" (Ministry of Health). 
In discussing the Ministry of State Administration and Administration Reform project , Ms. 
did not mention the petitioner or her role. Ms. stated that the 2007 
Ministry of Health project, which comprised integration of vanous electromc health records along 
with "education of the end users and delivery of the relevant licenses ," "was one of the first which 
directly benefited the end use on a larger scale .... The solid reputation of [the petitioner] secured 
her a role of strategic adviser in this career changing project with significant national interest 
impact." Ms. speculated that the petitioner "will contribute to many insightful 
solutions" relating to the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 
111-148 (Mar. 23, 2010), 124 Stat. 119. 
Relating to the Ministry of Economy project, Ms. stated that the pet1t10ner 
"consulted the entire a plication process of numerous businesses which successfully received [grant] 
funding. " Ms. stated that, as a result of the project , "the average GDP growth over 
the period 2000-2006 reached 5.4%, while the average growth for EU-25 was 2.2%." Ms. 
claimed that she began working with the petitioner in 2004, and the petitioner 
claimed no experience prior to 2004 that evidently involved EU-funded projects. The stated period 
of "2000-2006 ," therefore, consists mostly of time when the petitioner was not working on the 
described projects. The record lacks documentary evidence to support Ms . 
assertions, and to establish that the petitioner's contributions changed and improved the outcomes of 
the various projects in which she participated. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
director of the 
community event." She states: 
"met [the petitioner] at a 
We discussed my new community project- the building of a new church which is a 
big undertaking. Within the first 15 minutes she came up with a creative fundraising 
(b)(6)
Page 13 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
plan which in the next 3 month[s] helped us raise 1.3 million dollars and will help us 
raise another 4.7 million in the next 2 years .... 
She also developed a for the 
Implementing a provides a comprehensive and consistent 
approach to managing for results using data-driven decisions aligned with the 
organization's mission , vision, goals, and strategies. 
The record does not show how the petitioner's efforts, and the results achieved, differ from those 
attained by other qualified workers on comparable projects. 
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 received consideration 
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. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also 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)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain general evaluations of the petitioner's abilities and 
qualifications, without specifically identifying innovations and providing specific examples of how 
those innovations have influenced the field. The petitioner also failed to submit corroborating 
evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight 
of the reference letters. 
The petitioner has identified some of the projects on which she has worked, but she has not 
documented the extent to which her involvement has shaped or improved the outcome of those 
projects. Evidence about the indicates that the method is already in widespread 
use. Furthermore the petitioner did not create or improve the method, and therefore evidence about 
the is not evidence of the petitioner's impact or influence on the field. Her 
familiarity with the method is not, itself, evidence of eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
rag e 14 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that her influence be national in scope. NYSDOT , 
22 I&N Dec. 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
field of endeavor." !d. at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole."). 
The intrinsic importance of one's occupation is not sufficient to establish eligibility for the waiver, and 
neither are expectations of future success not founded on specific, verifiable evidence. The petitioner's 
participation in and her familiarity with the show that the petitioner has 
advanced training in her specialty, but these factors do not establish past influence and, thus, eligibility 
for the waiver. 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. 
Review of the record reveals additional grounds for denial of the petition. The AAO may identify 
additional grounds for denial beyond what the Service Center identified in the initial decision. See 
Spencer Enterprise s, Inc. v. United States , 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1043 (E.D. Cal. 2001), aff'd, 345 
F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Soltane v. DOl, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that the 
AAO conducts appellate review on a de novo basis). 
The petitioner claims eligibility for classification both as an alien of exceptional ability in business 
and as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The director did not discuss this 
issue in depth, offering only the summary conclusion "that the petitioner holds the requisite 
advanced degree or exceptional ability." The record contains insufficient 
evidence to support this 
conclusion. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions : 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaure ate 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master 's degree. If 
a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a 
United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertis e 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, a s 
well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
To qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the petitioner must show that 
her occupation meets the above definition of a profession, and that she holds a qualifying advanced 
degree. Section 101(a)(32) of the Act does not include business development managers in the list of 
professions, and the petitioner has not established that a United States baccalaureate degree or its 
foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established that she is a member of the professions. 
In terms of academic degrees, the petitioner has documented bachelor and master of public 
administration degrees from in but she has not submitted credential 
evaluations to establish their equivalency to nited States degrees. The petitioner may hold a degree 
equivalent to a United States master's degree, but she has not submitted sufficient evidence to 
support that conclusion. 
To establish exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or business, the USCIS regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) requires the petitioner to submit at least three of the following: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of 
learning relating to the area of exceptional ability; 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing 
that the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which 
he or she is being sought; 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation; 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability; 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations; or 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 
The petitioner claims to have met five of the six listed standards, as discussed below. 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
t'age 10 
The petitioner holds relevant degrees, as described above. The regulation does not require evidence 
of equivalency with United States degrees. The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission 
of her "academic credentials." 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
The netitioner claims "over ten years of professional experience ... with over l 00 projects certified 
by '' but Mr. stated that the petitioner worked at "for over 
five years," not the ten years required by the regulation identified above. Mr. did not specify 
when the petitioner began working at but the petitioner states that her employment there 
began in 2007. The petitioner's claimed ten years of experience includes internships and intervals of 
employment for which the petitioner has not submitted the required employer letters. 
In the request for evidence , the director discussed the petitioner ' s claim of exceptional ability, but 
did not state that the petitioner had established at least ten years of full-time experience in the 
occupation she seeks. The petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, 
which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) 
stated that the petitioner "commanded a salary with full benefits and bonuses which 
was 400% higher than the normal range in her field of expertise. The exact compensation package 
cannot be revealed due to non-disclosure agreement and company policies ." Unsupported assertions 
are not evidence. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(2)(i). 
The director did not list this criterion among those that the petitioner had satisfied. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
The director, in the request for evidence, stated: "USCIS acknowledges evidence of the beneficiary 's 
... memberships in professional associations. " The record, however, does not support this finding , 
because it contains no such evidence. In her introductory statement, the petitioner named 18 
organizations and stated: "These groups and associations do not issue letters evidencing 
membership; however, I represent under penalty of perjury to be a current and active member. " The 
regulation requires not claims of membership, but evidence of membership. Unsupported assertions 
are not evidence. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. 8 C.P.R. § 103 .2(b )(2)(i). 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(P) 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
The director, discussing the petitioner's exceptional ability claim in the request for evidence, 
deviated from the wording of this criterion, stating: "USCIS acknowledges evidence of the 
beneficiary's ... high esteem in the eyes of former colleagues and industry professionals." Evidence 
of "high esteem" does not satisfy the plain wording of any of the regulatory criteria for exceptional 
ability. 
The petitioner did not establish that her occupation is a profession; that she holds a degree equivalent 
to a U.S. advanced degree; or that she has exceptional ability in business. Therefore, the evidence of 
record is not sufficient to support the director's finding that the petitioner has met all of those 
requirements. We hereby withdraw these findings by the director, raising an additional ground for 
denial of the petition. Even without this additional ground, we would have dismissed the appeal 
based on the director's original finding that the petitioner had not established eligibility for the 
national interest waiver. 
We will dismiss the appeal 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 of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.