dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cement And Machinery Industry Consulting

Ptmuccopy 
FILE: 
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 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
JAN 2 5 2011 
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. § lI53(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.F.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.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
;v-Ferry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
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 or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. According to Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner seeks employment as an 
"international Consultant for Cement and Machinery industry." The petitioner asserts that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an alien employment certification, is in the 
national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for the 
classification sought, but that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement 
of ajob offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence. I Counsel has consistently asserted that the 
petitioner's "extraordinary ability" and "acclaim" demonstrate his eligibility for the benefit sought. 
While on appeal counsel minimally addresses the legal standards for the classification sought, counsel's 
initial cover letter did not. instead, counsel focused on the regulatory requirements for aliens of 
extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203 (b)(1 )(A) of the Act. 
While admittedly a higher classification, the alien of extraordinary ability classification is an entirely 
separate classification from the one sought in this matter with its own separate regulatory requirements 
set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Adjudication of a petition filed under section 203 (b)(1 )(A) of the 
Act involves an extensive two-part evaluation of the evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as 
described in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). Consistent with that decision, after 
determining whether the petitioner has submitted the evidence described in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
USCIS then evaluates the significance of that evidence as part of a final merits determination. Id. at 
1119-20. Thus, the submission of evidence relating to the ten criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) 
does not, by itself, establish eligibility under section 203(b )(1 )(A). 
Significantly, USCIS is statutorily prohibited from providing unfunded adjudications under section 
286 (m) of the Act. Thus, we will not evaluate whether the evidence submitted would be sufficient 
to establish eligibility under section 203(b)(1 )(A) of the Act. If the petitioner wishes a determination 
I On the Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel indicated that he was filing a motion to 
reconsider rather than an appeal. Counsel added handwritten language relevant to appeals only that he would 
submit a brief "to the AAO" in 30 days. Counsel cited no provision that would allow a petitioner to 
supplement a motion as is permitted with an appeal. The AAO received counsel's brief on January 8, 2010. 
The cover letter, addressed to the AAO, indicates that the submission is: "In reo Motion to Consider" but 
references a "Notice of Appeal." The brief itself is titled "Motion to Reconsider" and is addressed to the 
Texas Service Center, which would have jurisdiction over a motion in this matter. Given counsel's reference 
to the AAO and submission of the brief to the AAO, the AAO advised counsel that it intended to adjudicate 
the filing as an appeal unless counsel requested otherwise in 10 days. As of this date, more than six weeks 
later, this office has received nothing further. Thus, we find the filing to be an appeal. 
--Page 3 
as to whether he qualifies under section 203(b)(I)(A), the appropriate action is to submit a petition 
under that classification. 
Regardless, the submission of evidence that allegedly relates to the regulatory criteria for a first 
preference classification does not create a presumption that the petitioner must qualifY for a wavier of 
the alien employment certification process in a second preference classification. Rather, the petitioner 
must address the legal standards for the benefit sought. We will address those standards below. 
Section 203(b) ofthe 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. 
In pertinent part, section 203(b )(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the 
professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and aliens of exceptional ability and whose 
services are sought by an employer in the United States. An advanced degree is a United States 
academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(2). The regulation further states: "A United States baccalaureate 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." [d. 
Exceptional ability is defined as a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in 
the sciences, arts, or business. [d. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(3)(ii) sets forth six criteria, 
three of which must be met to demonstrate exceptional ability. One of those criteria is evidence of at 
least ten years of experience. 
Page 4 
Counsel asserts that the petitIOner "qualifies for this classification as he has over 41 years of 
experience." Counsel does not explain how the petitioner's experience alone qualifies him as either an 
advanced degree professional or an alien of exceptional ability. 
I. Advanced Degree Professional 
The record establishes that the School for 
-awarded the petitioner the 1973. The petitioner indicates on the ETA 
Form 750 that this credential is a bachelor's degree. The record establishes that the petitioner has more 
than five years of experience after 1973. Moreover, engineering is defined as a profession at section 
101(a)(32) of the Act. Nevertheless, the petitioner did not submit an evaluation of his foreign degree. 
Thus, the record does not establish that the beneficiary's education is a foreign equivalent degree to a 
U.S. baccalaureate. Without a credible evaluation establishing that the beneficiary's education is the 
foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. baccalaureate, his subsequent experience carmot be combined with 
his education to equate to the equivalent of an advanced degree. 
II. Alien of Exceptional Ability 
The director concluded that the petitioner qualifies as an alien of exceptional ability. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the following six criteria, at least three of which an alien must 
meet in order to qualify as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or business: 
(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 ofletter(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 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) determines whether the evidence demonstrates "a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered" in the arts. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Kazarian v. USC/S, 596 F.3d at 
1115, sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then considered in the 
context of a final merits determination. While involving a different classification than the one at 
issue in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's reasoning persuasive to 
the classification sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center decisions, the AAO will apply 
the test set forth in Kazarian. As the AAO maintains de novo review, the AAO will conduct a new 
analysis if the director reached his or her conclusion by using a one-step analysis rather than the two­
step analysis dictated by the Kazarian court. See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(l)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 
at 145; Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043 (recognizing the AAO's 
de novo authority). 
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 
As stated above, the petitioner holds the academic rank of_ Thus, he has submitted 
qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
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 
The record establishes that the petitioner has worked in his field for more than 10 years. Thus, he 
has submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation 
The record contains no evidence relating to the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services. which 
demonstrates exceptional ability 
The petitioner submitted a letter from professor at the •••••••• 
asserting that the petitioner's annual remuneration, including bonuses, is approximately $400,000 per 
year. does not explain how he has personal knowledge of the beneficiary's 
remuneration. Counsel asserts that th~oner's monthly salary from 
_, which he owns, is 1,531,120_ or $32,000. The unsupported assertions 
not constitute evidence. 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). 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted the Details of Payments made to persons at_ stating that the 
petitioner's salary in 2008-2009 was 1,500,000 _. The document does not indicate that this 
salary is monthly. The petitioner did not submit the exchange rate fro~ to U.S. Dollars. 
According to (accessed January 20, 2011 and incorporated into the record of 
proceedings) 1,5 is currently equivalent to $32,856. The petitioner also submitted his 
wife's bank statements showing two deposits of 99,220 _ on November 19, 2008. A 
handwritten notation indicates that these deposits are salary. If so, they are well below the 1,500,000 
monthly salary alleged. In fact, these amounts are far less than even one quarter of 1,500,000 
as would be expected if the deposits represented weekly wages of the amount alleged. The 
petitioner submitted a self-serving statement of his own net worth. This document does not establish 
his salary or other remuneration. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence that the top 10 percent of chief executives in the United 
States earned greater than $166,400 annually. The petitioner, however, is employed in _ The 
petitioner did not submit evidence of comparable wages in _ 
As the petitioner has not submitted consistent evidence of his salary and other remuneration and 
evidence of comparable wages in., he has not submitted qualifYing evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
Evidence of membership in professional associations 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner is a member of professional organizations that "require 
outstanding achievements of their members." As stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel 
do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 
19I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. We acknowledge that the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) does not specify that the associations must require 
outstanding achievements of their members. Nevertheless, it bears mention that the petitioner did 
not submit any evidence of the membership requirements of the associations in support of counsel's 
assertion. 
The petitioner 
and_ 
Industry. This documentation does not specify that the petitioner, rather than is the member. 
Thus, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by 
peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations 
The petitioner submitted evidence that the an 
Award" to _on January 21, 1999. The petitioner did not personally receive this award. 
Nevertheless, the ., on the same date, issued the petitioner the Award for 
Page 7 
distinguished leadership and outstanding contribution to industry. This award constitutes qualifying 
evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that qualifies under three of the 
evidentiary criteria, those set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (B) and (F). Thus, we must next 
conduct a final merits determination that considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or 
not the petitioner has demonstrated that the beneficiary has "a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Section 203(b)(2)(C) of the Act provides that 
the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or similar award from a college, university school or 
other institution of learning shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional 
ability. The petitioner has not specifically demonstrated that his education, which he has not even 
demonstrated is the foreign equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate, is indicative of a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered among engineering executives. Nevertheless, the 
petitioner's extensive experience and 1999 recognition sufficiently support a finding that the 
petitioner has a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. Thus, 
we uphold the director's finding that the petitioner qualifies for the classification sought as an alien 
of exceptional ability. This finding, however, is a separate inquiry from whether the alien 
employment certification process should be waived in the national interest. 
III. National Interest Waiver 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress 
did not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "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, IOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service 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. 
Initially, counsel stated that the petitioner qualifies for the waiver because he has sustained national and 
international acclaim and his achievements have been recognized in his field over the past 40 years. As 
stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez. 17 
I&N Dec. at 506. We reiterate that we will not evaluate the evidence under the regulatory criteria 
Page 8 
counsel discusses as those criteria are only pertinent to an entirely separate visa classification. At issue 
is how this evidence relates to the appropriate legal standard for the benefit sought. 
The interpretive precedent decision relevant to this matter is Matter of New York State Dep't. of 
Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter "NYSDOT"). Counsel has never addressed 
this case, even on appeal after the director extensively cited it. This published precedent decision, 
however, is binding on all USCIS employees pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). To date, neither 
Congress nor any other competent authority has overturned this precedent decision? Thus, we will 
focus on the legal interpretations set forth in that decision. 
As stated above, the petitioner has submitted evidence that he qualifies as an alien of exceptional 
ability. By statute, however, "exceptional ability" is not, by itself, sufficient cause for a national 
interest waiver. Id. at 218. Thus, the benefit which the alien presents to her field of endeavor must 
greatly exceed the "achievements and significant contributions" contemplated for that classification. 
Id; see also id. at 222. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217-18 sets 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. Id. at 217. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed 
benefit will be national in scope. Id. 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. Id. at 217-18. 
It must be noted that, 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 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. Id. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence and again on appeal, counsel states: 
• The Labor Certification process aims at protecting skilled and unskilled workers, 
not individuals with the education, expertise and recognition of [the petitioner]. 
2 Congress amended the Act to facilitate waivers for certain physicians. This amendment demonstrates 
Congress' willingness to modify the national interest waiver statute in response to Matter of New York State 
Dept. of Transportation; the narrow focus of the amendment implies (if only by omission) that Congress, thus 
far, has seen no need to modify the statute further in response to the precedent decision. 
Page 9 
• The Labor Certification Process would limit [the petitioner] to only one 
employer. [The petitioner] has the expertise and qualifications to benefit the US 
as a whole by providing consultancy services to hundreds of organizations in the 
US and abroad. Filing a labor certification would limit the scope of 
contributions to one petitioning employer. 
• The Labor Certification is a lengthy process. The need for professionals in the 
US such as [the petitioner] is immediate. [The petitioner's] contributions in his 
field of expertise will allow US companies to tap into the •••••• 
increase exports, and generate jobs for the American population. 
First, counsel mischaracterizes the aim of the alien employment certification process. By law, the labor 
certification process applies to advanced degree professionals and aliens of exceptional ability in 
addition to skilled and unskilled workers. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Thus, the petitioner's 
education and experience alone are insufficient. Counsel's claims of "recognition" will be discussed 
below. 
Second, the petitioner is the owner of a consultancy company. As consultancy companies obviously 
exist, it is not clear why working for a single company would limit the petitioner's proposed benefits. 
Regardless, the petitioner's preference to be self-employed, in and of itself, is insufficient. While self­
employment will be given due consideration in appropriate cases, the inapplicability or unavailability of 
an alien employment certification cannot be viewed as sufficient cause for a national interest waiver; 
the petitioner still must demonstrate that the self-employed alien will serve the national interest to a 
substantially greater degree than do others in the same field. Id. at 218, n. 5. 
Third, counsel's discussion of the need for individuals in the petitioner's occupation is not 
persuasive. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under 
the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. Thus, we cannot 
consider such assertions. 
Finally, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the Department of Labor's current "PERM" process 
is a lengthy one. Regardless, nothing in the legislative history suggests that the national interest waiver 
was intended simply as a means for employers (or self-petitioning aliens) to avoid the inconvenience of 
the alien employment certification process. Id. at 223. 
The director found that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, packing plant consultancy 
for the cement and other industries. The director also accepted that the proposed benefits of the 
petitioner's work would be national in scope3 In order for us to consider these factors, however, the 
petitioner must do more than merely state his obj ective. He must specifY the proposed benefits and 
3 On appeal, counsel states that the director concluded that "the benefit will be national in scope." In fact, the 
director explicitly stated that the "proposed benefit" would be national in scope. (Emphasis added.) 
Page 10 
how they are in the national interest such that they are national in scope. Initially, counsel stated that 
the petitioner's objective "is to cater to the~dustry worldwide by providing consultancy 
services to U.S. based organizations or U.S. organizations based abroad involved in the Cement 
Industry." This statement does not explain what the proposed benefit will be and how it is in the 
national interest. As stated above, counsel subsequently stated that the petitioner's expertise "will 
allow US companies to tap into the Indian Market, increase exports, and generate jobs for the 
American population." On appeal, counsel submits an article on the challenges facing the cement 
industry. This article discusses the need for additional cement in the United States and does not 
discuss how the industry is trying to access the Indian Market or increase exports. In fact, page 5 
states that the U.S. cement consumption is dependent on imports. The record lacks sufficient 
explanation as to what exactly the petitioner proposes to do, what the specific benefits will be and 
how those benefits will be national in scope. 
It remains 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. Eligibility for the waiver must 
rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position sought. In other words, we 
generally do not accept the argument that a given project is so important that any alien qualified to 
work on this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. 
Moreover, it cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique background." 
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 United States is an issue under the 
jurisdiction ofthe Department of Labor. !d. at 221. 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. !d. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, we note that 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. 
The petitioner initially submitted the following evidence relating to Enexco: 
• An organizational chart, 
• The company profile, 
• Financial statements and tax documentation, 
• Articles about the Ro,·tm~, mentioning that ••• would 
undertake the design of the complete clilrlli:(lrgrinding plant, 
Page 11 
• An article by the 1'~",uV""'" discussing 
-••• Ip projects for 
• Paid advertisements by_ 
• Bank letters characterizing_ account as a accoollnt " 
• Certification of conformance b~ Evaluations, 
• Contracts with clients, 
• Client letters recommending _ for a term loan, 
• Letters from clients affirming_ satisfactory completion of contracted 
projects, 
• "Google" search results for and 
• Evidence that_has had displays at various trade conferences. 
The record establishes that _ is a successful company with satisfied clients who are willing to 
vouch as references for other potential clients or lenders. _ also advertises in trade media and 
attends trade conferences and symposia as would be expected of a cement engineering firm. It is the 
position of USCIS, however, to grant national interest waivers on a case-by-case basis, rather than to 
establish blanket waivers for entire fields of specialization. Id. at 217. Thus, there is no blanket waiver 
for every successful business owner. 
Counsel initially asserted that there are "hundreds" of articles about the petitioner and his work. As 
stated above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 
19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 
I&N Dec. at 506. For the reasons discussed below, the record does not support this assertion. 
First, counsel only lists four such articles. The petitioner himself, and not an independent journalist, 
authored one of those articles. The remaining three articles are actually about 
Factory. These articles establish on~ was contracted to work on a . 
stated above, we do not contest that _ is a successful company. We reiterate, however, that there 
is no blanket waiver for every successful businessman. 
Second, counsel includes paid advertisements under published material about the petitioner. Counsel 
states: "Please note that sinc~ a Public Held Company, the need for publications are only 
restricted to magazines view~ Industry not by the market." The issue is not that the 
"published material" appears in publications limited to the cement industry but that they are paid 
Page 12 
advertisements rather than independent journalistic coverage of the petitioner or _ The fact that 
_ advertises in journals aimed at its potential customer base does not demonstrate the influence of 
the petitioner's work. One of the advertisements boasts the world's tallest belt bucket elevator. Even 
assuming that the petitioner is responsible for this innovation by his company, innovation by itself is 
insufficient. Id. at 221, n.7. The record contains no evidence that the belt bucket elevator is an 
especially significant innovation that has influenced the field. For example, the record contains no 
independentjoumalistic coverage of the construction of the elevator. 
Third and finally, counsel asserts that the "hundreds" of articles are apparent from the "World Wide 
Web." The list of 276 results for a "Google" search of -. is not evidence that there are hundreds 
of articles about the petitioner and his work. The vast majority of these results are from _ own 
website, business directories and clients' websites. These results do not show hundreds of "articles" 
about the petitioner or Enexco as counsel implies. 
The petitioner personally article discussing_involvement in the and 
the redevelopment of plant, ~ the December 2004 The 
petitioner notes that completed its work on the ~lant within the stipulated time limit 
and that the plant exceeds the guaranteed capacity. Counsel did not initially explain how this self­
promotional article establishes the petitioner's influence in the field. In response to the director's 
request for additional evidence, counsel notes that a search on produces the 
petitioner's articl.!O.., , is a search engine that searches available on the 
Internet. While '~ill list citations if they exist, the search results the petitioner 
provided show no citations of the petitioner's article. The fact that a broad search engine can locate the 
petitioner's article is evidence of the article's availability, not its influence. 
The petitioner also submitted an article by another employee entitled 
_ The undated article does not reflect the publication in which it appeared. The article, 
chronicling_ history and work on plant, is self-promotional and 
cannot establish influence in the field. 
As discussed above, the petitioner also submitted evidence that~ecognized the petitioner with the 
award for distinguished and outstanding contribution to in~ 
at the same event recognized_with Award. As stated above, __ 
award is formal recognition for achievements and significant contributions pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). We reiterate, however, that by statute, "exceptional ability" is not, by itself 
sufficient cause for a national interest waiver. Id. at 218. The record fails to document the specific 
underlying bases for the award in _ If the award simply recognizes the petitioner as the owner of 
a successful company, we reiterate that the national interest waiver is not a blanket waiver for 
successful businessmen. 
Page 13 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a 2001 company 
profile of_ in Purchase. The record does not reflect how many companies Purchase profiled 
in this issue or whether or not these profiles are essentially promotional advertisements prepared by 
the companies themselves. 
The petitioner also submitted coverage of a conference in thanking the petitioner for 
facilitating a trip to the I plant. This brief mention of the petitioner does not demonstrate his 
influence in the field as a whole. 
On appeal, counsel asserts: 
Industry, by introducing innovations and 
has been a pioneer in . first _ 
the of the first 
• ~~~ ••• C/C 170M 650TPH Drive 2X220 KW 
it is the tallest in the world and is being supplied to _ 
• 
• 
In addition, technical collaborations with globally based organizations allowed_ 
to constantly upgrade its products profile. 
We reiterate that the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of 
Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. _ self-promotional advertisements mention the world's ••• 
•••••• but the record lacks evidence that_ innovations have had an influence on the 
field of cement e~ as a whoJe. Appellate exhibit C, referenced by counsel, includes 
advertisements of_products on Once again, self-serving advertisements 
cannot demonstrate the petitioner's influence in the field as a whole. The record contains an article 
entitled The only mention of _ is as an 
example of one of the "number of newcomers" supplying rotopackers. The article does not single out 
_ as having started any trends. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted a single reference letter from an 2 2 
, _ states that to evaluate [the 
petitioner's 1 qualifications through peer reference letters and industry reference materials." _ 
_ does not suggest that he was aware of the petitioner's reputation and influence prior to being 
contacted for a reference letter. 
; 
Page 14 
At the outset, Isserts that the petitioner has extensive experience in a leading role for a 
company with a prestigious reputation. Once again, the national interest waiver is not a blanket waiver 
for every experienced, successful businessman. further asserts that the petitioner 
"deslii' ed new equipment, As an example, _ mentions 
the high capacity the 
various power saving equipment and cement grinding plants. 
that his specialties are fluid dynamics and heat transfer. does not explain how he has 
personal, first hand knowledge of the standard technolo~ cement industry. He provides no 
examples of other companies that have been influenced by _ innovations. 
_ then reiterates many of counsel's claims that relate more to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the 
Act than the benefit sought in this matter. Of repeats counsel's assertions that 
there are "hundreds of articles published in paper and and internationally referring to 
[the petitioner] and his work." As discussed extensively above, however, the evidence submitted to 
support this assertion does not, in fact, support this assertion. Rather, the alleged media coverage 
consists almost entirely of advertisements and listings in on-line business directories. The remaining 
coverage consists of minimal references to _participation on the _ project, the 
petitioner's own promotional articles, a promotional company profile and a single undated article in an 
unidentified publication by another _ employee. Thus, the record does not support II 
_conclusion that the petitioner's media coverage "exceeds almost every top executive in t e 
cement industry both in quantity and in impact." 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) 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 Board 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 of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. uscrs 
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; 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"). 
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. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'\. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
, " . 
Page 15 
The letter considered above primarily contains bare assertions of innovation now standard in the field 
without providing specific examples of how those innovations have influenced the field, Merely 
repeating the legal standard for the benefit sought does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof 4 
The petitioner submitted only a single independent letter and this letter does not suggest the author 
has applied the petitioner's work, The petitioner also failed to submit relevant corroborating 
evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight 
of the reference letter. 
While the petitioner's services are no doubt of value, it can be argued that any successful 
businessman will have provided valuable services to his clients, It does not follow that every 
successful business man inherently serves the national interest to an extent that justifies a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The record lacks evidence that the petitioner has had a degree of influence 
in the trade. 
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 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 alien employment 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, 
S US,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 an alien employment certification certified by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting 
evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd, v, Sava, 724 F, Supp, 1103, 1108 (ED,N,Y, 1989), affd, 905 F, 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (SD.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F, Supp. 9, 15 
(D.C. Dis!. 1990).