dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemical Engineering

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Adminislraliv e Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE : APR 1 8 2014 Office: TEXAS 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: 
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, 
)JDtMnUvv r Ron Rosenberg 
~ Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
. matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
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 a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a Process Engineer ::mel Pm~ess Tnte2:rator for Chemical Projects. At 
the time of filing, the petitioner was working for (U.S.) Inc. The petitioner 
asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in 
the national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has 
not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national 
interest of the United States . 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and additional documentary evidence concerning how the 
proposed benefits of his work will be the national scope. The petitioner also submits information 
pertaining to the U.S. Department of Labor's labor certification process. The petitioner asserts that the 
standard of proof in this matter is preponderance of the evidence. In most administrative immigration 
proceedings, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is eligible for 
the benefit sought. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). The truth is to be determined 
not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. !d. at 376. In the present matter, the 
documentation submitted by the petitioner fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 
a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national interest of the 
United States. 
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 natiopal 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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
The record reflects 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, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the hnmigration Act of 1990, P.L. 
101-649, 104 
Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990) (IMMACT90), 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. 
In reNew York State Dept 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 he 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. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that he will serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same 
minimum qualifications. !d. at217-18 . 
The petitioner has established that his work as a process engineer and process integrator in the 
chemical engineering field is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. With regard to the second 
prong of the national interest waiver test, the director found that the proposed benefits of the 
petitioner's work for (U.S.) Inc. would not be national in scope. On appeal, 
the petitioner points to documentary evidence indicating that his employment provides the 
prospective national benefit of improving environmental, health, and safety conditions in the 
chemical refinery industry. In addition, the petitioner points to documentation indicating that his 
prospective employment facilitates the production of chemicals that are important to other industries 
throughout the United States and helps to "debottleneck" existing ethylene oxide manufacturing 
capacity in the U.S. The petitioner further states that the resulting increase in manufacturing 
capacity will reduce production costs, create domestic jobs, and improve U.S. competitiveness in the 
industry globally. As the documentation submitted by the petitioner is sufficient to demonstrate that 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
the proposed benefits of his work are national m scope, the director' s finding on this issue IS 
withdrawn . 
It remains, then, to determine whether the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater 
extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications . Although the national 
interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish his past record 
justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. NYSDOT at 219. The petitioner' s 
subjective assurance that he will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to establish 
prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used here to require future 
contributions by the petitioner, rather than to facilitate the entry of an individual with no demonstrable 
prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. !d. 
Eligibility for the waiver must rest with the petitioner ' s own qualifications rather than with the 
position sought. Assertions regarding the overall importance of a petitioner's area of expertise 
cannot suffice to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. !d. at 220. At issue is whether 
this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such significance that he merits the special benefit of 
a national interest waiver, a benefit separate and distinct from the visa classification he seeks. A 
petitioner must 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, 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. !d. at 221, n. 7. 
In support of the petition, the petitioner submitted letters of support discussing his work for 
Inc. and , a oil company. 
~--------------~ 
Project Consultant, Spain, stated: 
I worked very closely to [the petitioner] on the "Sulfur Reduction to 50 ppm (parts per 
million) in commercial fuels" project, between 2003 and 2005. During that period, our task 
was the development of Conceptual (pre-FEED [Front End Engineering Design]) and Basic 
(FEED) Engineering for Refinery. The project was the result of a legal 
requirement to reduce sulfur content on commercial fuels, mainly gasoline and gasoil, in 
order to decrea se pollution on the four most populated cities. Only for 
Refinery, this tighter quality specification would lead to a sulfur emission reduction to 
the atmosphere greater than 10 tons per day. The project involved more than ten process 
units either for modification s on existing or construction of new grassroots units exceeding 
more than five hundred million dollars of capital investment. In a joined effort, [the 
petitioner] and I were responsible for the framing of the different most probable scenario s, 
mass and energy balance development for the entire refinery , technology selection and basis 
of design development , just to mention some. 
Ms. comments on her project with the petitioner to develop a FEED design to reduce sulfur 
content emission from the Refinery, but there is no documentary evidence showing 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
that the process engineering design developed by the petitioner has affected practices at a number of 
refineries in the industry or has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
Global Technology Manager for Catalytic Cracking and Delayed Coking, and 
Chief Process Engineer- (U.S.) Inc., stated that he "hired [the 
petitioner] in the Catalytic Cracking team in Amsterdam, The Netherlands." Mr. further 
stated: 
[The petitioner] became leader of preparing technical proposals for licensing bids. His main 
contribution was the standardization of the process to deliver the technical offer packages, 
improving the quality of the deliverables and reducing not only the response time but also the 
man-hour costs. 
[The petitioner] performed a study as to coke formation in a Cat Cracking Unit of one of the 
refineries , which unit had been suffering several unplanned shutdowns due to coke 
formation in one essential piece of equipment. .. . After a rigorous analysis, [the petitioner] 
found the incident root causes and based on that he wrote a report with sound technical 
recommendations. Since then, the unit has not been shut down due to this problem . 
[The petitioner] performed a study to improve the circulation of the catalyst in Catalytic 
Cracking units ; [the petitioner] took over an ongoing project for the installation of a catalyst 
circulation device (proprietary technology) in a third party customer in Scotland. His duties 
consisted of design review, start up assistance and performance test run after installation. 
This project was a success as it came to life without delays after a flawless start-up and 
fulfilling all the technical guarantees. [The petitioner] was the key player in this project. 
Stack emissions study: One important refiner in Europe went through a major incident in its 
catalytic cracking unit releasing harmful species to the atmosphere. . 
. . [The petitioner] was 
assigned to investigate the facts which led to the incident as well as to determine the 
chemical species sent to the atmosphere and in which amounts. [The petitioner's] report was 
used for the refiner as reference documentation within the information to be provided to local 
environmental authorities. 
* * * 
Pre-commi ssioning, commissioning and start-up of a major (USD 100 million +) revamp in a 
Cat Cracking Unit in Venezuela: [The petitioner] was appointed as a member of a multi­
disciplinary team in charge of this activity. Due to delays, the revamp became behind 
schedule and the team leader got his retirement in the middle of the project. [The petitioner] 
took over the leadership position immediately showing courage to face the new situation and 
leading the group efficiently to a successful start-up. 
Mr. points to the petitioner's preparation and standardization of s technical 
proposals, his study and recommendations concerning coke formation in a catalytic cracking unit at 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
a refinery, his installation of a catalyst circulation device for a customer in Scotland, his 
investigation and report on stack emissions at a European refinery, and his commissioning and start­
up of a catalytic cracking unit in Venezuela, but does not provide examples of how the petitioner's 
work has had a specific impact beyond and its customers. The petitioner's specific influence on 
the field of chemical engineering as a whole is not documented in the record. 
Team Lead for Process Engineering for Projects, Chemicals and Innovation, Research 
and Development, (U.S.) 
Inc., stated: 
[The petitioner] has a strong background and skill in understanding new 
technology/technology new to him, and then performing computer modeling of that 
technology. . . . His significant background in operations support early in his career 
combined with his significant experience on a large capital project at that same facility, with 
a previous employer, gives him a unique balance of exposure to be able to function on both 
sides of the fence: operations and projects. . . . His exposure to the organization while 
serving as a employee adds to his unique skill set in that he understands how to interact 
with operating sites while workin with a technical team scoping out a project even 
though he has not served at an operating facility. This unique ability is very difficult to 
find outside of the internal technical community . . . . He brings his background to the 
table along with his skilled technical abilities to learn any one of the technologies we support 
within our team to be able to scope out a project using computer modeling tools with support 
from site operations when needed. Based on my personal exposure to the current market 
place reviewing resumes for external positions open in my team, I am convinced that [the 
petitioner's] unique skill set is hard to find in the current U.S. market place today. 
comments on the petitioner 's unique skills and technological background, but special or 
unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. NYSDOT at 
221. Any claim that the petitioner possesses useful skills or a "unique background" relates to 
whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States and is an issue under the 
jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor through the employment certification process. /d. 
further stated: 
[The petitioner] is currently playing a strong role in scope development of new projects at 
our premier U.S. Chemicals manufacturing facility in Louisiana. He is one of a 
few engineers in the entire company that has the skill and ability to run computer models of 
our ethylene oxide production plants. In that capacity he has made significant contributions 
to project scope for our units to be able to increase capacity through them, resulting in 
increased product output. The increased production capacity will add to 's Chemical 
portfolio ~elated to an increase in ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol molecules. Whether 
used internally in other product streams or sold externally as is, this increase m 
production will benefit the U.S. economy both locally and nationally. Customers of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
will be able to increase their production rates and manufacture new products employing these 
molecules , for use in the U.S. market. 
* * * 
For another project he has also created a computer model to simulate our manufacturing 
process for a new molecule being produced at our facility for our detergents 
business. For this new chemical process, [the petitioner] also validated the reactor design 
using proprietary design tools that are no longer supported within the technical 
community. 
states that the petitioner creates and runs computer models at l's production plant in 
Louisiana to simulate manufacturing processes and to analyze the facility's ability to 
handle increased production capacity. However, does not provide specific examples of 
how the petitioner ' s work has led to advancements in the chemical refinery industry or has otherwi se 
affected the field of chemical engineering as a whole. The petitioner must demonstrate not only that 
his work is useful to and its customers, but also that it has influenced the field as a whole. 
Principle Process Technologist, Ethylene Oxide/Glycols, Projects and Technology 
(U.S.) Inc., also comments on the petitioner's work at 
the Plant. He stated: 
Several projects have been identified to expand capacity at Chemicals __; 
Louisiana manufacturing facility. . . . [The petitioner] began working with the Ethylene 
Oxide/Glycol Technology group in January 2010. The work began with a capacity test run at 
the lant in early 2010. The data was analyzed and projects developed to increase 
the unit capacity . [The petitioner] provided the modeling and detailed design of the 
modifications for the site. 
[The petitioner] supported the project in two major areas: Unit Safeguarding and 
Debottleneck Scope. . . . [The petitioner] was able to evaluate each system and confirm that 
all were properly designed and sized for the new operating conditions. This was especially 
challenging around the EO [Ethylene Oxide] reaction system where preliminary evaluations 
from the past had indicated major modification
s might be required . By making a thorough 
analysis of this system at the new operating conditions, [the petitioner] was able to show that 
modification s were not required resulting in substantial project cost reductions. 
[The petitioner] is supporting the debottleneck project for the Ethylene Oxide/Glycol Unit. 
In this work, he developed a computer (ASPEN®) model of the unit. This entailed taking 
data from the test run and adjusting the model to fit the plant data .... This modeling work 
has historically been done in Technology Center. However , it is 
important to develop this skill in the U.S. and [the petitioner] brings this skill to the 
echnology Center. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
[The petitioner] provided the design to increase unit capacity by 15% with options to increase 
capacity even further in the future. The preliminary cost of the project was unacceptably 
high. [The petitioner] reviewed the project scope and was able to reduce cost by 30%. 
Mr. comments on the petitioner's involvement in a project to expand capacity at 's 
manufacturing facility. However, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's unit 
safeguarding analysis and computer modeling work using the ASPEN® simulation tool have 
influenced the field as a whole. Regarding the petitioner's skill in ASPEN® modeling, any objective 
qualifications which are necessary for the performance of the occupation can be articulated in an 
application for labor certification. NYSDOT at 220-221. In addition, although Mr. states that the 
petitioner's design increased capacity and reduced manufacturing cost at site, he does 
not explain how the petitioner's work has specifically influenced practices in the chemical refinery 
industry or has otherwise affected the field of chemical engineering as a whole. 
Senior Process and Technology Engineer, (U.S.) Inc., stated: 
[The petitioner] became my colleague after a company re-organization moved me from the 
Lower Olefins group to the Chemical Projects group in Jan 2010. We were initially assigned 
to assist with the test run and safeguarding review of two Ethylene Oxide (EOEG) plants in 
Louisiana. Later, we collaborated in the debottlenecking of the plants that would lead to 
capital investment by 
* * * 
[The petitioner] was given the task of evaluating the efficacy of almost 100 relief valves for 
higher operating rates of the EOEG2 plant within a short period of time. With diligence and 
applying good engineering sense, [the petitioner] was able to complete the evaluation in time, 
allowing the high capacity test run to be executed within a narrow time window. This 
enabled to conduct a safe test run and collect crucial information to launch a capital 
project that would eventually provide higher return on investment for EO plants in the 
U.S. 
* * * 
[The petitioner] is a savvy user of the Aspen flow sheeting program which is used to perform 
heat and material balance around EOEG plants. His attention to details and careful· analysis 
of plant data and modeling principals [sic] allowed model improvements that proved to be 
important for project/economic evaluations and designs that followed. An accurate economic 
assessment is especially needed in a depressed economy to ensure profitable capital 
investments that provide expected returns to stakeholders like stock and bond holders. 
* * * 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
[The petitioner's] chemical engineering skills are highly needed in the U.S. as this country 
strives to improve the environment and make more productive use of natural resources. 
Advances in chemical technology are needed to resolve problems such as renewable energy 
and greenhouse gas reduction with sustainable economic growth. 
Ms. points to a safeguarding analysis performed by the petitioner concerning higher operating 
rates for relief valves at the EOEG2 plant and to his usage of the Aspen flow sheet program to 
perform heat and material balance for EOEG plants, but fails to provide specific examples of 
how the petitioner's work has impacted other process engineers in the chemical refinery industry or 
has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. In addition, Ms. comments on the imp01tance of the 
petitioner's "chemical engineering skills" and the need for advances in chemical technology in areas 
such as renewable energy and greenhouse gas reduction. However, general arguments or 
information regarding the importance of a given field of expertise cannot by themselves establish 
that an individual benefits the national interest by virtue of engaging in the field. NYSDOT at 217. 
Such assertions and information address only the "substantial intrinsic merit" prong of NYSDOTs 
national interest test. Moreover, with regard to the petitioner's "chemical engineering skills," special 
or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. Id. at 221. 
_ -----, Manager, Regional Manufacturing Support, 
(U.S.) Inc., stated: 
In my present role, [the petitioner] worked in my team for approximately 11Jz years. [The 
petitioner] was supporting the FCC [Fluidized Catalytic Cracking] technology area, and he 
was the focal point for several manufacturing sites. In this role, [the petitioner] provided 
technical support and services to multiple manufacturing sites. These services and support 
included process unit monitoring, troubleshooting, optimization and process design for 
projects. 
* * * 
Because of the significant shortage of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) 
professional s in the U.S. and the increasing demand for these professions, [the petitioner's] 
educational and professional experience would help to meet this resource demand in the U.S. 
Mr. comments that the petitioner provided technical support and services to multiple 
manufacturing sites, but there is no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner's specific 
work has had an impact beyond and its customers, or has otherwise affected the field as a 
whole. In addition, Mr. mentions the "significant shortage" of STEM professionals in the 
United States . However, the unavailability of qualified U.S. workers or the amelioration of local 
labor shortages are not considerations in national interest waiver determinations because the labor 
certification process is already in place to address such shortages. !d. at 218. Again, the issue of 
whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the 
U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. ld. at 221. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
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." /d. 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 the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion , use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony . 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding a petitioner's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner' s professional contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; 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"). Thus, the content of the experts' statements and how they became aware of the petitioner's 
reputation are important considerations. Even when written by independent experts, letters solicited 
by a petition er in support of an immigration petition are of less weight than preexi sting, independent 
evidence that one would expect of a chemical process engineer who has influenced the field as a 
whole . 
The director denied the petition on August 9, 2013. The director determined that the reference 
letters from immediate colleagues and coworkers of the petitioner were not sufficient to demonstrate 
the petitioner's past impact in the field of process engineering. In addition , the director concluded 
that the submitted evidence did not show that the petitioner "has made a contribution to any aspect 
of process . . . engineering so great as to outweigh the national interest inherent in the labor 
certification proces s." The director therefore concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a substantially 
greater degree than would a similarly qualified U.S. worker. The petitioner contests the director' s 
statement that "[a]n employer is never restricted on the type of work experience that can articulated on a 
labor certification" and offers a detailed explanation of the labor certification process. The petitioner 
cites to U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations at 20 C.P.R. § 656.17(i) that indicate employers 
do face certain restrictions on the type of work experience that can be articulated on a labor 
certification. Accordingly , the director 's statement to the contrary is withdrawn. 
However, the inapplicability or unavailability of a labor certification cannot be viewed as sufficient 
cause for a national interest waiver; the petitioner still must demonstrate that he will serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than do others in the same field. NYSDOT at 218, 
n.5. By statute, eligibility for the waiver is based on serving the national interest, not the employer's 
inability or unwillingnes s to obtain a labor certification . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
The petitioner also challenges the director's statements that the petitioner failed "to establish or even 
claim that [he] has authored or co-authored any professionally published articles in his specialty" 
and that having one's work cited to by other engineering professionals in their publications is a 
reliable measure of impact on the field. The petitioner states: "It appears that the Service is saying 
that the beneficiary of a national interest waiver petition must be a published author in the field of 
endeavor in order to illustrate that the beneficiary's efforts have had a sufficient bearing on the field 
to warrant a national interest waiver .... " 
Although publication and frequent citation by others are not required to demonstrate eligibility for 
the national interest waiver, they are examples of the types of evidence that are helpful in 
demonstrating that an individual's work has garnered the attention of other professionals in the field 
beyond his coworkers. Again, in order to demonstrate eligibility for the third prong of the national 
interest waiver test, a petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of 
influence on the field as a whole. NYSDOT at 219, n. 6. As evidence of his past history of 
achievement, the petitioner relies on letters of support that are limited to his current and former 
coworkers from and Although these letters are important in providing information 
about the petitioner's role in various projects for his employers, they cmmot by themselves establish 
that his work has affected the field as a whole. 
The petitioner asserts that he "engineers and designs various chemical processes" and that the 
"processes are usually highly proprietary and confidential, and do not often warrant scholarly 
publication in the field." Although the proprietary nature and confidentiality of the petitioner's work 
may be normal in the chemical engineering field, without documentary evidence that the petitioner's 
work has impacted the field beyond his employers in some specific mmmer, it has not been established 
that he has influenced the field as a whole. 
The petitioner points out that he was a lecturer at the "South American Cat Cracking Catalytic 
Symposium" in Brazil in 2002 and at the "First Latin American Refinery Technical Conference" in 
Argentina in 2001. Although the petitioner submitted copies of materials entitled "New Operational 
Strategy for Cat Cracking Units (FCC) in Refinery" and "Distillation Control in 
RLC-FCC II Depropanizer," there is no documentary evidence from the conference organizers (such 
as conference agenda or an event program listing the lecturers) demonstrating that he was a featured 
speaker on those topics at the aforementioned conferences in 2001 and 2002. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of 
proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soff'ici, 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)). Regardless, many 
professional fields regularly hold meetings and conferences to present new work, discuss new 
findings, and to network with other professionals. These meetings and conferences are promoted 
and sponsored by professional associations, businesses, educational institutions, and government 
agencies. Although presentation of the petitioner's work demonstrates that his findings were shm·ed 
with others and may be acknowledged as original based on their selection to be presented, there is no 
documentary evidence showing that his presented work has been frequently cited by independent 
engineering professionals or that his findings have otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
In addition, the petitioner asserts that he served as a trainer of a 40-hour '' 
'course in Turkey in 2008. The August 29, 2012letter from Mr. stated: 
Catalytic Cracking and Related Processes Course: [The petitioner] was appointed as lecturer 
leader of this course. That was the first time this training was delivered to a third party (it 
had been only an internal course until then) and a very positive feedback from the 
customer was received, mainly related to the skills and knowledge of the lecturer. 
With regard to petitioner' s work as a trainer or lecturer for the above course , there is no documentary 
evidence establishing that benefits of his work extended beyond his students such that his 
instructional material influenced the field as a whole. Furthermore, as Mr. stated that the 
course previously existed as "an internal course," there is no evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner was the original developer or author of the course material. 
The petitioner further states that he served as lecturer of a 24-hour "SHARC Course" in Turkey in 
2007, but provided no documentary evidence to support the claim. Matter of Soffici, at 165. 
Regardless, there is no evidence showing that the petitioner's course material has affected the field as a 
whole. 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced degree 
professional or alien of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based 
on national interest. The petitioner has not shown that his past record of achievement is at a level 
sufficient to waive the job offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa 
classification sought by the petitioner. While the petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the 
scale of national acclaim , the petitioner must have "a past history of demonstrable achievement with 
some degree of influence on the field as a whole." NYSDOT at 219, n.6. On the basis of the evidence 
submitted, the petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor 
certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
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, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed .