dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. , N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: APR 1 8 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
))!J_[~v;t!--
rRon Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 'L 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the 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 a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a civil engineer. At the time he filed the petition, the petitioner was a 
postdoctoral fellow at the where he earned a doctorate in 2010. 
The petitioner now works at . _ Sacramento, California. 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 statement from counsel, a witness letter, and updated evidence of 
citation of his published work. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability.-
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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, P.L. 101-649, 
104 Stat. 4978 (Nov . 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly 
an alien 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 Dep 't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) 
(NYSDOI), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the 
same minimum qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections offuture benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. !d. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore , whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on November 29, 2012. 
In an accompanying statement, counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] is a civil engineer with a focus in earthquake research .... 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
His work has been repeatedly published in leading, peer-reviewed scientific journals, 
as well as used by government agencies .... 
[The petitioner's] achievements are considered uniquely innovative and influential by 
experts in this field. His work clearly stands out from that performed by other 
engineers .... 
[The petitioner's] publication record serves as further evidence that his work is 
considered especially important. While all researchers routinely publish their 
findings in scholarly journals, only research that is deemed particularly important is 
published in the leading, peer-reviewed scientific journals. [The petitioner] has 
repeatedly had his research findings published in highly-selective journals .... These 
articles have garnered attention from experts in the field, having been cited by a 
handful of other researchers. 
The petitioner submitted several witness letters with the petition. 
the petitioner's supervisor, stated: 
Professor 
[The petitioner] and I have been collaborators and colleagues at the 
for the past six years .... That collaboration has resulted thus far in 13 
papers and reports of new findings in the field that have appeared or been accepted 
for publication in prestigious journals in the field ... and proceedings of several 
conferences around the world .... All these publications address critical issues in 
seismic resilience of highway bridges such as rapid repair of earthquake-damaged 
bridges and development of modern and cost-effective computer modeling 
techniques. 
[The petitioner] worked with me in one of my research projects funded by the 
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) during his PhD studies. As part 
of this project, he helped develope [sic] seismic damage states for bridge columns, 
which has been adopted by Caltrans as lexicon for defining damages [sic] states in all 
bridge elements. The effective damage repair methods that were developed in the 
course of that project set the stage and served as a model for repair of other bridge 
elements with additional research funding. As a post-doctoral fellow he is assisting 
me in directing several other research projects and advising several doctoral students. 
Professor stated: 
Much of [the petitioner's] current research has been centered on improving the 
seismic behavior of reinforced concrete bridges. In particular his specialty is the 
rapid repair of bridges that have been damaged by strong earthquakes to enable 
immediate access, faster response and quicker recovery in the affected region .... 
(b)(6)
Page) 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[The petitioner] has also made significant contributions to the body of knowledge that 
underpins a new methodology for the seismic design of bridges in the United States. 
This approach is called performance-based design and is considered to be a more 
rational and cost effective way of designing bridges for earthquakes than traditional 
methods. But to be adopted in general practice, the methodology needs to be 
calibrated against actual bridge performance in earthquakes and [the petitioner] has 
played a key role in this effort. By taking performance data from large-scale 
experiments conducted here at he has distilled the 
information necessary to give confidence in this new approach and has thus made 
another vital contribution to the design of safe but affordable bridges in the U.S . 
. 
. . His papers and presentations have greatly impacted the field because they contain 
unique data and findings from first-of-a-kind experiments on near full-scale structures 
in one of the largest earthquake simulation facilities in the world. 
Dr. now a transportation engineer manager with the Department of 
Transportation and owner of / _was previously one of the petitioner's 
professors at Dr. stated: 
Dr. 
stated: 
Most of [the] existing bridges in the United States were designed based on old 
specification[s] and need to be strengthened in the future. Even modern bridges are 
expected to undergo significant damage with "no-collapse" under strong ground 
motions. Consequently, they are not serviceable after such earthquakes. [The 
petitioner] developed a method using advanced composite materials to repair 
damaged bridges and restore their serviceability quickly after strong earthquakes to 
minimize the impact to the community. 
assistant professor at the -
I first learned of [the petitioner's] research work through his publications. Currently I 
am collaborating with him on a research project funded by the California Department 
of Transportation (Caltrans) that involves repair of severely damaged reinforced 
concrete columns with fractured reinforcing bars. Some of his research findings are 
being utilized in our current study, and I am greatly impressed by his level of 
expertise in the areas of seismic design, evaluation, and repair, as demonstrated by his 
extensive research achievements in these fields . 
. . . I can confirm that [the petitioner] has continually made outstanding research 
contributions that have advanced the state of the scientific community's 
understanding of infrastructure engineering. Specifically , his recent publications on 
emergency repair of reinforced concrete bridges has generated considerable interest in 
the US and Japan where it can now be said that he revolutionized the field. I believe 
(b)(6)
t'age o 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
that the method he established to repair earthquake damaged columns using 
materials is a significant contribution to [the] 
engineering community .... 
Because of his pioneering work in repair of infrastructure ... , [the petitioner] has 
gained visibility and recognition in the academic and practicing community of Civil 
Engineering, both in the US and abroad. In terms of his knowledge of the field, he is 
one of the top researchers in this area. 
Dr. seismic research program manager at 
Dr. 
stated: 
who has worked with the petitioner "[f]or the past five years," stated: 
[The petitioner] recently completed an important 
research proiect titled ' 
The objective of the study was to develop a rapid 
and effective repair method using materials 
for earthquake-damaged bridge columns . ... The significant outcome of this study 
was a series of charge indicating the number of required layers inside and 
outside the plastic hinge zones based on the observed damage state, column 
dimensions, and the longitudinal steel ratio. These charts along with the proposed 
repair procedure enable rapid repair of earthquake-damaged columns and quick 
opening of bridges to traffic. His excellent work led, for the first time, to design 
guidelines for damage state identification and standardized emergency repair 
techniques. His research outcomes will be soon incorporated into the design codes 
used by bridge engineers to design/repair earthquake damaged bridges. 
associate professor at the 
Currently I am the chairman of the 
which . . . is currently developing a seismic performance-based design method 
for bridge columns. Utilizing this . method, bridge engineers can predict the 
performance of bridges after earthquakes of varying intensities. Of [the petitioner's] 
work, [two of his] publications have been of extreme value in developing the 
document that the subcommittee is putting together. 
Other witnesses, who claimed not to have worked with the petitioner, stated that the petitioner has 
devised ways to evaluate and repair bridge damage caused by earthqu akes. For example, Professor 
of stated: 
[The petitioner] developed a simple method to evaluate bridge damage after an 
earthquake using visual inspection. This method was developed by establishing a 
correlation between observed damage and several important seismic response 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
parameters using shake table test data. . . . Another application of developed 
correlation between apparent damage states and important seismic response 
parameters by [the petitioner] is to develop performance-based seismic design of 
bridge columns. This design method enables bridge engineers to design bridges so 
that they sustain a pre-defined damage state under an earthquake with specified 
intensity, while the current design specifications require only collapse prevention 
under strong ground motions. [The petitioner's] findings have been incorporated in a 
scientific report on seismic performance-based design method for bridge columns. 
This report was prepared by of 
and I was one of the key authors of the report. 
Professor of stated that the petitioner "developed 
guidelines for reliable and efficient repair procedure of earthquake-damaged reinforced concrete 
bridge columns using materials." 
Professor ofJ described the petitioner's 
research into the use of materials to repair bridges, and stated: "We have been conducting 
similar work at and have found [the petitioner's] work to be a useful and important reference 
in our studies." 
The petitioner submitted partial copies of his scholarly writings. One of his papers appeared in 
which appears to be a 
printout of an electronic publication; the title page shows "Search" and "Help" buttons, which would 
not appear on a printed publication. Of the remaining five journal articles, the petitioner submitted 
three in draft form; it is not evident how many of the articles had already been published as of the 
petition's filing date. 
The petitioner submitted printouts from the Google Scholar and lSI Web of Science databases, 
showing three independent citations to the petitioner's work. The Google Scholar printout identified 
two articles independently citing a paper that the petitioner presented at the Sixth National Seismic 
Conference on Bridges and Highways in One citation appeared in 2008, the other in 2011. 
The lSI Web of Science printout (showing the results of a search by author, without identifying the 
cited work(s)) identified two citing articles, one of them a self-citation by Prof. 
The petitioner submitted materials about some of the journals that have published his work, 
including their impact factors (average citation rates over time). The petitioner did not submit this 
information for Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, which carried the petitioner's only 
claimed independently cited journal article, or for the proceedings of the conference identified 
above. The petitioner also submitted correspondence indicating that the Journal of Bridge 
Engineering accepts "only 4 7% of submitted articles," and "( f]or the last several years, about one­
third of submitted manuscripts have been accepted for publication" in the ACI Structural Journal. 
These statistics lack information to put them in context, such as how these acceptance rates compare 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
with other journals in the field; what proportion of articles rejected by a given journal eventually 
appear elsewhere; and the acceptance rate of papers that the petitioner has written. 
The petitioner submitted copies of correspondence showing that he peer-reviewed four manuscripts 
submitted for publication by the between 2010 and 2012. The 
petitioner's name also appears in a list of "technical reviewers of papers offered for publication in 
periodicals" in 2011. The petitioner did not submit the complete list, but he submitted page 274 
(showing 38 names and a banner at the top of the page) and 296 (showing 40 names). Given the 
number of pages and the number of names per page, the complete list of reviewers appears to consist 
of approximately 1,000 names. The petitioner did not submit any materials from the to 
establish how it selects technical reviewers. Therefore, the evidence submitted regarding peer 
review does not serve to establish the petitioner's influence on his field. 
The director issued a request for evidence on February 26, 2013. The director instructed the 
petitioner to establish the extent of his past influence on the field. In response, counsel stated: 
The evidence includes an updated citation count, froin Google Scholar, showing that 
[the petitioner's] work has been cited sixteen times. In addition, his work has been 
cited in several recent articles, technical documents and dissertations that do not 
appear in the Google Scholar count -we are enclosing copies of these items with this 
letter. 
The new Google Scholar printout shows a total of 16 citations of the petitioner's work. Nine of 
those citations appeared in 2013, after the petition's filing date. An applicant or petitioner must 
establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request. 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(1). Evidence submitted in response to a request for evidence must establish 
eligibility as of the filing date. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(12). Therefore, subsequent events cannot 
cause a previously ineligible alien to become eligible after the filing date. See Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). The remaining seven citations appeared between 2008 
and 2012. Four of the petitioner's articles earned one citation each; two earned two each; and two 
earned four each. The petitioner did not submit a list of the individual citations represented on the 
list, and therefore the petitioner did not show how many of the 16 citations are independent citations 
reflecting his influence on the field, as opposed to self-citations. 
The petitioner submitted four papers that include citations to the petitioner's work. Counsel had 
indicated that these citations were in addition to those enumerated in the Google Scholar printout, 
but because that printout did not identify the cited articles, the record does not confirm that all three 
citing papers represent additional citations. One of the citing papers is a 2011 report co-authored by 
Prof. including a self-citation to his work with the petitioner. Two other papers are articles 
published in 2013, after the petition's filing date, by Dr. research group. Dr. had 
previously identified himself as one of the petitioner's collaborators. The remaining paper is an 
undated manuscript by Prof. research group. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECED ENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Counsel stated that the "additional evidence" submitted in response to the request for evidence 
included "an advisory opinion from ... Dr. The submitted letter is a copy of the 
letter previously submitted with the initial filing, and therefore it does not constitute additional 
evidence beyond that first submission. The petitioner submitted this letter as evidence that Caltrans 
intends to implement the petitioner.' s work relating to emergency bridge repair. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of an August 2010 Research Notes newsletter from Caltran ~ , 
reporting on the Caltrans-funded efforts of Prof. research group. This newsletter predated 
the filing of the petition by more than two years, and did not show the extent to which Caltrans had 
begun using the results of the petitioner's research at the time of filing. 
Counsel stated: "In 2008, one of [the petitioner ' s] papers was recognized with an award from the 
a global association for alumni of A 
photograph of the award plaque identified the award as the "2008 Graduate Student Paper Award," 
presented May 5, 2009. The petitioner did not establish the significance of this award outside of the 
named university. Evidence of recognition for achievements and contributions can form part of a 
claim of exceptional ability under the USCIS regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). Section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act states that aliens of exceptional ability are subject to the job offer 
requirement, and therefore evidence consistent with exceptional ability cannot suffice to establish 
eligibility for the waiver. 
The petitioner submitted copies of additional invitations, all from the to review manuscripts. 
Counsel claimed: "To be invited to serve as a reviewer is recognition of particular expertise ." The 
petitioner has not supported this claim. 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 submitted a COf'Y of a May 1, 2013 letter from Dr. associate 
vice president of stating: 
The petitioner is employed full time, working 40 hours per week, and is a part of our 
transportation line of business in Sacramento, California. He started with in 
February 2013 and works under my supervision . In this role, he contributes in the 
design of new bridges and other transportation infrastructures and evaluation, retrofit , 
and repair of existing infrastructures. 
Currently, [the petitioner] is working on a "Product Development Project" for the 
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The project involves reviewing a 
variety of Caltrans standard details and upgrading them to meet the latest design 
criteria. [The petitioner's] education and experience have proven to be particularly 
suited to this project and is expected to help in its successful completion. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
!'age lU 
Again, the petitioner must show that he was eligible for the waiver when he filed the 
November 2012, and that he continues to be eligible in his new employment at ....___ __ _. 
§§ 103.2(b )(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 49. 
etition in 
8 C.F.R . 
The petitioner ' s initial waiver claim primarily focused on the petitioner's work on a specific project 
for Caltrans, involving repair of earthquake-damaged bridges using materials. The contract to 
erform that project was wit rather than with the petitioner as an individual, so when he left 
two months after filing the etition, he left the project. Dr. . general description 
oft e etitioner ' s new job at is the only discussion of the petitioner's efforts after leaving 
The director denied the petition on June 18, 2013. The director acknowledged the intrinsic merit and 
national scope of the petitioner 's occupation , but concluded that the petitioner had not established 
the impact and influence of his work. The director stated that the petitioner's articles "have not been 
notably cited" and that his conference presentations "do not appear to have garnered much 
attention," sufficient "to distinguish him from her [sic] peers." The director acknowledged the 
petitioner's peer 
review work, but found "no evidence to suggest the beneficiary's peer review work 
has separated him from the general field." With respect to the witness letters, the director stated that 
the letters show that the petitioner's "work has promising possibilities, [but] they do not indicate that 
the beneficiary's contributions have enjoyed widespread implementation in the field." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a new Google Scholar printout , which , counsel states, shows that 
the petitioner "has accumulated four more citations (a 25% increase since May 2013)." The new 
printout, dated July 10, 2013, shows 20 citations to the petitioner's work since 2008. All but seven 
of these citations appeared in 2013; there was no existing pattern of significant citation of the 
petitioner's work as of the November 2012 filing date. Also, the new printout , like the one 
submitted previously, does not distinguish between self-citations and independent citations. Self­
citations do not demonstrate that the petitioner's work has influenced others. 
Counsel states that the director's decision contained "both minor and major errors in assessing the 
evidence ." The decision sometimes refers to the petitioner with feminine pronouns , and twice 
misidentifies the petitioner 's occupation, once calling him a "social scientist " and once "an engineer 
in the field of electrical engineering." The decision also correctly refers to several evidentiary 
exhibits, however, and therefore it appears that the director copied passages from other decisions 
without modifying the language to fit the present record . Counsel acknowledges that the errors 
listed above are minor ones. They do not appear to have affected the outcome of the decision. 
Counsel states: "The more significant error comes from the fact that the adjudicator failed to give 
sufficient weight to the key evidence ," including "detailed accounts from various experts" describing 
"how [the petitioner ' s] work was influential upon their work." Counsel disputes the director ' s 
conclusion that the letters "do not indicate that the beneficiary ' s contributions have enjoyed 
widespread implementation in the field." Counsel states: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
[T]hat is exactly what the letters do show .... 
[W]e submitted evidence that for the first time, [the petitioner] developed design 
guidelines for rapid repair of earthquake-damaged bridges and introduced an 
innovative approach for post-earthquake evaluation of bridges which are effectively 
adopted and being utilized by the California Department of Transportation . 
Furthermore , his work was being incorporated by the American Concrete Institute 
into national guidelines for seismic performance-based design of bridges. Other 
researchers working in the same field also found [the petitioner's] work very useful 
and incorporated his findings in their on-going projects. 
Counsel quotes Dr. assertion that the petitioner's "excellent work led, for the first time, 
to design guidelines for damage state identification and standardized emergency repair techniques. 
His research outcomes will be soon incorporated into the design codes used by bridge engineers to 
design/repair earthquake damaged bridges. " 
Counsel notes Prof. assertion that the petitioner's "findings have been incorporated in a 
scientific report .. . prepared y The 
record does not contain a copy of the unidentified report, and therefore the record does not establish 
the extent to which the petitioner's work shaped the report. Counsel also quotes the previous letter 
from Dr. chair of who stated that two of the petitioner 's 
"publications have been of extreme value in developing the document that the subcommittee is 
putting together ," and Prof. assertion that the petitioner's "work [has been] a useful and 
important reference ." 
In a new letter, senior bridge engineer at states: 
Mr. 
Currently I am the technical manager of 
a research project on an innovative method 
for seismic design of highway bridges. This method is called 
and provides a means for 
engmeers to predict the damage cause to bridges subjected to various earthquakes. 
(The petitioner ' s] work has been extensively used in developing this novel seismic 
design method since 2011. He introduced innovative probabilistic approach in post­
earthquake evaluation of bridges and his work has been effectively adopted in 
also asserted that influence on can extend beyond California: 
The pioneering work of Caltrans in earthquake engineering of bridges is being used 
across the country and the worldwide [sic]. For example, Caltrans has developed 
Seismic Design Criteria for bridges and updates the document frequently. The 
(b)(6)
Page 12 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
majority of this document has been adopted nationally by the American Association 
of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 
The petition predominately rests on witness letters. The record contains other evidence showing that 
the petitioner has conducted research and has presented his findings to others in the field, but the 
evidence does not corroborate many key claims in the witness letters. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have received consideration 
above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien' s eligibility . USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
In this proceeding, counsel acknowledges that the petitioner has relied primarily on witness letters to 
establish not only the opinions of witnesses, but also issues of fact. Going on record without 
supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in 
these proceedings. Matt er of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Craft of California , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1972)). 
The petitioner and witnesses have asserted that the petitioner 's work has resulted in the adoption of new 
repair protocols, but the record contains no documentation to support this claim, or to establish how 
widely other jurisdictions have adopted the repair methods. The record does not show that the 
petitioner's method has actually been used in bridge repair, or that the results of such use have 
confirmed the high expectations of the witnesses who have praised the petitioner's work on the project. 
Furthermore, witness commentary has focused narrow I y on a specific project that the petitioner 
undertook at there is no indication of a consistent history of influential contributions by the 
petitioner. The petitioner has since left and the record does not show that the petitioner, in his 
new employment, has continued to make contributions at the level of impact claimed for his bridge 
repair project that he conducted as a postdoctoral trainee at 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that his influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. 217. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
field of endeavor." !d. at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole."). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
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 labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The AAO will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.