dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

(b)(6)
- , 
DATE: FEB 2 0 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: 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 · 
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 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 AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F .R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please beaware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
)J)J/JJI)Vtr£ 
(Ron Rosenberg 
\...1\cting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
' 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The director then dismissed the petitioner's untimely motion to reopen and reconsider, but 
moved to reopen the petition. The director again denied the petition. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO 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 the sciences and as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner is a civil engineer currently employed as an 
engineer scientist with the 
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 from counsel and several 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 scienees, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The petitioner claims eligibility for classification as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences. The 
record readily establishes that the petitioner's occupation qualifies as a profession and that he holds two 
advanced degrees from _ An additional determination regarding the 
petitioner's claim of exceptional ability would be moot. 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. 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
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, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, published at 
56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 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 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 (NYSDOT), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 
1998), has set 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. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 
Finally, the petitioner establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than would an available United States worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on 
prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
thatthe alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The intention behind the term "prospective" is 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. 
The AAO also notes that.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 r-140 petition on August 16, 2011. In an accompanying statement, 
counsel stated: 
[The petitioner's] research focuses on methodologies of ~stimating surface depression 
storage. Such research has prov~n beneficial for identifying spatial distribution of 
(b)(6)
Page4 
surface depressions, characterizing depressional elements, and calc~lating the 
available volume within a drainage basin. Armed with the methods and techniques he 
developed, federal agencies can visualize the spread of surface depressions within an 
area and determine if a potential rainfall amount can cause adverse flooding problems 
for the citizens, given the available drainage infrastructure .... The outcome of [the 
petitioner's] research also makes it possible for the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency to assess the health of wetlands over a period of time and st~dy endangered 
species . .. that dwell in these habitats. 
, stated: 
[The petitioner] is an Engineer Scientist whose contributions to the field of 
preservation and management of Florida's precious water resources have affected, 
and will continue to affect water resource protection and, in extension, wildlife and 
human health in the United States. 
Due in part to [the pe.titioner' s] efforts, the health of the citizens of the State of 
Florida and the country are largely protected. Florida consistently leads the nation in 
water resources protection in the areas of land management and conservation of water 
sources. This is largely due to the engineering and scientific ~ork of people like [the 
petitioner]. His research in landscape surface depressions allows us to have a better 
understanding of the surface water run off processes, which allows us to build better 
hydrologic models for our water supply and pollution load reduction programs. 
While the State of Florida needs talented individuals such as rthe petitionerl to 
improve health and the environment, it is not the policy of the 
.o petition for permanent resident status due to budget constraints. 
addressed the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's occupation, but did not distinguish the 
petitioner from other qualified professionals in that occupation . With respect to "the policy of the 
' the AAO will take this information into account, but no employer , 
public or private, can unilaterally exempt its employees from the labor certification requirement 
simply by declaring its refusal to participate in the process. The petitioner must still establish that a 
waiver will serve the national interest. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 218 n.5. 
Much of the petitioner's initial evidence addressed the claim of exceptional ability, and related to the 
regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(m)(3)(ii)(A) through (E). As noted previously, exceptional ability 
is not, on its face, grounds for the national interest waiver. Therefore, a-detailed discussion of these 
materials would serve little practical purpose in the present decision 
The petitioner described his work in greater detail: 
My PhD research focused on the development of new techniques and methodologies 
for identification, extraction, ·and quantification of landscape surface depression 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
storage capacity, and its application in hydraulic and hydrologic models to simulate 
the effect of changes in surface depression storage on the environment. Estimation of 
surface depressional storage capacity in large drainage basins is extremely important 
in order to understand its effect on wetlands, flooding, ecosystems, forests, habitats, 
and the economy .... 
However, measurement of watershed surface depressional storage is a challenge 
facing the scientific community for the past four decades. . . . Nevertheless, an 
accurate modeling of hydrologic processes ... requires accurate estimation of surface 
depression storage as well as other major characteristics of the watershed .... 
My research focused on the development and application of mathematical modeling, 
optimization, statistical methods, and geographic information systems (GIS) to 
· · esti,mate surface depression storage .... Armed. with the methods and techniques I 
developed, federal agencies can be able to visualize the spread of surface depressions 
within an area, and determine if a potential rainfall amount can cause adverse 
flooding problems for the citizens. : .. 
Using the cutting-edge technology developed from my research, FEMA [the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency] and other federal agencies can map spatially where 
surface depressions exist, quantify volume, and understand which areas are more 
prone to flooding. My techniques would augment FEMA's current floodplain 
mapping methodology to determine low, medium, or high flood risk areas .... 
The outcome of my research makes it possible for the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) to assess the health. of wetlands over a period of time and study 
endangered species of the United States that dwell in these habitats. This is because 
wetlands are mostly located at surface depressional areas. 
The petitioner, in' the statement excerpted above, stated that his methods are of use to ·federal 
agencies such as FEMA and EPA, but the petitioner submitted no evidence that those agencies use 
his wm:k or have expressed interest in doing so. The petitioner mentioned "cutting-edge technology" 
but did not identify or describe it. 
On September 17, 2011, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE), instructing the petitioner to 
"submit evidence to establish that the beneficiary's past record justifies projections of future benefit 
to the nation" (emphasis in original). In response, counsel protested that the "broad brush" RFE did 
not identify any specific deficiencies in the petition. The response included no substantive 
infornl.ation or evidence 
relating to the waiver. 
The director denied the petition on February 13, 2012, stating that the petitioner had not established 
eligibility under NYSDOT. The petitioner filed an untimely motion to reopen and reconsider on 
March 20, 2012. The director dismissed the motion, but reopened the proceeding on USCIS's own 
motion and issued a new RFE on May 14, 2012. In this second RFE, the director stated that the 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
petitioner had not submitted evidence to show how his "research leads to the (building of better 
hydrologic models for water supply and pollution load reduction programs." The director 
acknowledged the petitioner's eviden~iary submissions but found that they do not establish the 
petitioner's impact on his field of endeavor. 
\ 
In response, counsel asserted that the May 2012 RFE, like the September 2011 RFE before it, is 
procedurally deficient. Nevertheless, counsel presented a substantive response to the second RFE. 
The 
petitioner submitted an expanded version of his initial statement (with added portions printed in 
in blue ink). The petitioner stated: 
My research focused on the development~and application of mathematical modeling, 
optimization, statistical methods, and geographic information systems (GIS) to 
estimate .surface depression storage. 
The research resulted in development of software tools and "consistency zone" 
approach for estimating depression storage in coastal plain watersheds. The software 
tools were developed in ArcGIS software platform for automatic identification, 
delineation and computation of storage characteristics . . . [resulting in] the 
establishment of general criteria for identifying representative depression storage in 
flat coastal plains with land slope less than three percent. One benefit of this research 
is the fact that techniques should be reproducible in watersheds with similar 
characteristics throughout United States and globally. 
The methodology was applied to six (6) watersheds ... within the USDA Forest 
Service Francis-Marion National Forest located in South Carolina. The research 
techniques developed accurately estimated depression storage in these watersheds .. 
Depression storage determined via this approach was directly applied to 
DRAINMOD and DRAINWAT hydrologic models to simulate rainfall-runoff 
processes. Simulation results indicated depression storage determined by the research 
approach performed betterthan the traditional,trial and error methodology used in the 
past for calibration hydrologic models. Hence, this research outcome results in 
building better hydrologic models .... 
The research methodology . . . has been adapted and employed in developing _ 
hydrologic models in ... the most comprehensive and scientifically rigorous analysis 
. of the St. Johns River ever coqducted. 
The record shows that the petitioner himself participated in the projects discussed above, as a 
graduate student in and with his current employer in Florida. The petitioner did not 
show that other hydrologists outside of his own research circle have adopted the petitioner's 
methods, giving the petitioner's work national rather than regional impact. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
Counsel stated that the petitioner "has authored and co-authored several prestigious works which 
have been cited." Counsel identified three articles. The petitioner submitted one article to 
; the journal accepted the article in April 2012. Although 
counsel included this article at the top of list of "prestigious works which have been cited," the 
petitioner submitted no evidence of citation of this article. Counsel did, elsewhere, claim one 
citation of the article, which the AAO will discuss further below. Although newly-published, the 
article derives from the petitioner's work as a graduate student. . 
Regarding the second of the three named articles, counsel stated that the petitioner "co-authored 
Chapter 3 of the entitled" _ __ " The peer-
. reviewed study garnered tremendous review [sic], was endorsed by the National Academy of 
Sciences and was published in the · (emphasis in original). Once again, 
the petitioner submitted no evidence of citation. There is also no evidence to clarify what counsel 
meant by the phrase "endorsed by the National Academy or"Sciences." The petitioner documented 
that he was one of 12 co-authors of the chapter mentioned, but little else. 
Counsel identified a third published work, stating that the petitioner's "2008 publication 
has been widely cited" 
(emphasis in original). The record shows citation of the petitioner's "2008 publication" (his doctoral 
dissertation), but counsel did not justify the term "widely cited." The petitioner documented only 
three citations, and all three citing article share a common co-author, who 
was also a co-author of the petitioner's new article in 
Counsel identified a fourth citation, not documented in the record. Counsel claimed that "[a] 
manuscript submitted to [the] cited the 
petitioner's new article in One of the authors of this manuscript is 
who would therefore be citing his own work. Self-citation is a common and accepted 
practice, but it is not evidence of wider influence. 
The petitioner has not shown, or even claimed, that a citation to his work has ever appeared in any 
work that did not have as a co-author. The term "widely cited" does not readily apply 
when the petitioner's entire claimed and documented citation history traces back to one person. It 
applies even less so when that one person is a long-time collaborator who supervised the very 
research that led to the cited articles. 
In a letter, stated: 
I am presently a Research Hydrologist at 
I have known [the petitionerl since 2005 when he started his PhD program as a 
graduate student at the 
. 
. . Most of his research focused on field works at the Forest 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
Service long-term experimental watersheds and related hydrologic modeling works 
under my supervision. 
I see [the petitioner's] PhD dissertation ... as a significant contribution in current 
knowledge of assessing surface depression storage parameter, a very critical 
hydrologic characteristic of a watershed .... 
Most hydrological models including Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), 
Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), ORAINMOO and MIKESHE require 
depression storage capacity, a sensitive input parameter, for accurate prediction of 
rainfall-runoff processes. However, it is often difficult to accurately estimate the 
surface depressional storage parameter. [The petitioner] devised a new method to 
estimate depression storage using the cutting edge technology of GIS tools with 
digital elevation models (OEM) .... The OEM based surface storage provides a 
capability to assess the spatially distributed nature of such depressions in a landscape 
-that are important in managing soil, water, vegetation, and other habitats. 
I have adopted and included the new techniques developed by [the petitioner] for 
estimating depression storage capacity m hydrologic modeling graduate/ 
undergraduate courses I teach at both 
What makes [the petitioner] unique and exceptional is his solid understanding and 
expertise in geographic information system science and its application in water 
resources engineering for solving complex environmental problems. 
Six other witness letters accompanied the petitioner's response to the second RFE. 
an environmental lawyer who claimed no training or experience in the petitioner's field, 
evaluated the petitioner's credentials and stated that the petitioner's "expertise will probably have 
even greater national significance over time in an era of climate change." 
stated: 
I had the privilege to work with [the petitioner] during his doctoral research .... Our 
research Center has employed [the petitioner's] innovative approach to estimating 
depressional storage on complex micro- and macro-topography to accurately ide·ntify 
spatial location of depression storage on coastal South Carolina watersheds. 
The recent publication of this method in one of the most important international 
hydrologic journals, Hydrological Processes, is recognition of the important scientific 
contribution in the field .... 
(b)(6)
Page9 
[The petitioner's] method of mapping and evaluating the land surface has been 
extremely beneficial and opened a new research area that promises to help close this 
knowledge gap. 
-L .. ____________ ---------, jtated: 
I met [the petitioner] in about 2005 or 2006 in my work on the Francis Marion 
National Forest in coastal South Carolina. [The petitioner] made several quality 
technical presentations ... that I attended. As a visiting researcher and scientist, he 
conducted research ... to ·develop an approach to watershed-scale surface depression 
storage capacity estimation. There is little known about how to quantify the detention 
and storage of water in the coastal plain, and his GIS spatial and mathematical -
modeling are working on ways to estimate this. His excellent work also has 
applications that may improve prediction of rainfall-runoff modeling at various 
hydrological scales. 
With respect to the petitioner's influence on others, stated: 
I know his work has been beneficial to the Santee Experimental Forest and Center for 
Forested Wetlands, led by [The petitioner] has also collaborated on 
various studjes with ... and with other professors as 
and 
The record identifies as one of collaborators, and therefore 
letter does not attest to mdependent application of the petitioner's methods. 
in his second letter on the petitioner's behalf, provided technical details about the 
petitioner's role in various projects and assert~d that the petitioner's "contributions ... 
[are] greater than his peers with the same minimum qualifications ." 
biological administrator for the 
described his ongoing collaboration with the 
petitioner on the stated that the petitioner "is creating 
comprehensive standardized coverages from muitiple diverse ·data sets and sources as well as 
identifying future opportunities for enhancing and expanding current databases. This type of work is 
highly technical and requires the special skill set that [the petitioner] possesses." 
signed a letter on behalf of 
The letter reads, in part: . 
[The petitioner] is currently a member of the 
and serves a critical role as the 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
team engineer scientist. Since joining the he has served as the lead for 
developing standardized estuarine habitat GIS databases and maps for a northeast 
Florida wetland restoration plan that is currently under development. This plan is 
being created to guide future estuarine restoration efforts in Florida as well as serve as 
a framework for restoration on a national level. 
.... [The petitioner] has unique skills that assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 
mission to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats 
for the continuing benefit of the American people. 
The witnesses clearly hold the petitioner's work in high regard, but all ofthe witnesses have worked 
with the petitioner in some capacity, either during his student work in South Carolina or 
subsequently during his current work in Florida. Their statements about the utility and novelty of 
the petitioner's methods do not show that other research institutions or government bodies have 
. adopted those methods, or that significant benefits have arisen as a result of replacing older methods 
with the petitioner's newer methods . 
The director denied the petition on October 17, 2012. The director quoted from the various witness 
letters and discussed other submitted evidence, and concluded: "Although the beneficiary has been 
shown to be a competent Engineer Scientist in the field of ensuring the sustainable use and 
protection of water resources, it has not been established that a job offer waiver based on the national 
interest is warranted." 
Counsel, on appeal, states: :'The sole reason for the denial was the Service's inability to recognize 
that [the petitioner], to a greater extent than US workers having the same minimum qualifications, 
plays a significant role in the sustainability and protection of water resources." Counsel asserts that 
the petitioner's "methodology was applied and tested in nationally protected water bodies and 
preserves in South Carolina, North Carolina and in Floriaa." The petitioner trained in the Carolinas 
and now works in Florida; the use of his work in those locations is, therefore, to be expected, rather 
than seen as a sign of the importance and influence of his work. For all the assertions regarding the 
importance and novelty of the petitioner's methods, the petitioner has not documented the adoption 
of those methods by third parties in projects that do not, themselves, directly involve the petitioner or 
his close associates. 
Regarding one such project, counsel states: "Although this estuarine habitat restoration planning 
guide was prepared for [the] state of Florida it serves as a model for the rest of the United States." 
The record, however, contains no evidence that other jurisdictions have, in fact, adopted it as a 
model. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See 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). The petitioner's colhtborators and employers 
are confident of the superiority of the petitioner's methods, but the record does not show that others 
share that opinion. 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
Counsel contends: "[t]he locwnent is now complete and has been widely adopted." Counsel 
does not elaborate or define "widely adopted." As noted previously, cotinsel claimed that the. 
petitioner's work has been "widely cited," even though the record, at the time of the decision, showed 
only three or four citations, all of which appeared in papers by the petitioner's mentor, 
Counsel contends that is an authority in the field with vast and extensive experience," but 
this in no way implies that speaks for others in the field. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that cited the petitioner's work in a 2009 doctoral dissertation for 
The petitioner ·submits no evidence to support this claim. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. 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)). 
Also, counsel omitted the 2009 thesis from the previous list of citations, and therefore the director was 
not able to take it into account when considering those citations. The previous submissions did. 
however, indicate that :ollaborated with on a 2011 article, and that 
is an adjunct professor at where the thesis originated. Counsel's 
unsupported claims, therefore, do not disassociate from the petitioner's citation history. 
Counsel additionally argues: 
According to the AAO, counting citations is not the only means of measuring the impact 
of a researcher's work, but it is one way· to do so~ A citation count is not automatically 
disqualifying by itself, but it does mean that the petitioner must submit other credible, 
verifiable evidence to show how his work has influenced his field. 
The petitioner, however, has not provided such credible, verifiable evidence. The petitioner's cited 
work derives from his now-completed graduate student work; the record does not show that the 
petitioner continues to produce new research for journal publications. Certainly, in his current position, 
the petitioner could influence the field in other ways, such as by developing methods that others adopt 
and use. In such an event, the standard is not whether the petitioner's work could hypothetically serve 
as a "model" for others to emulate, but whether others have, in fact, adopted and emulated the model. 
In terms of Florida's adoption of plans that the petitioner helped to develop, the petitioner works for a 
Florida state government agency. As such, the development of such plans appears to be a basic element 
of his job rather than an unusual or influential achievement. Counsel states that. the petitioner's 
"package was almost entirely endorsed by interested government agencies, a weighty NYSDOT 
factor." Counsel cites no passage from NYSDOT to support this claim. The precedent decision does 
not contain the phrase "interested government agency" or any similar phrase. The AAO notes that 
the petitioner in NYSDOT was, itself, a state government agency, and the beneficiary of that petition 
did not receive the waiver. ' 
The record establishes that the petitioner performs useful work for his employer, and is well-qualified to 
do so. The record does not, however, demonstrate that the petitioner continues to produce influential 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
work that has had demonstrable impact outside of that employer and the geographic area it serves. The 
petitioner's earlier work as a graduate student appears to have attracted slightly more notice, due at least 
in part to continued promotion by who shepherded that work, but even if the petitioner had 
submitted much stronger evidence about the impact cif his student work, such past efforts cannot 
indefinitely entitle the petitioner to the waiver. The· waiver exists to ensure continued contributions, not 
solely to reward past ones in roles (such as that ·of a graduate student) that the petitioner no longer holds. 
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 shoulq 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 individua.I alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. . Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.