dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Economics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals 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. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Z~erry Rhew u 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. tj 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as an economist. 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 states that the director's decision lacked detail. 
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 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economicalIy and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 101 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] 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. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Cornrnr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, 
it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must 
be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 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. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the 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 inclusion of the term "prospective" is used 
here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. 
We also note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(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 offerllabor 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 petition on December 17,2007, with documentation of the petitioner's academic 
credentials and professional training as an economist, and evidence of his professional activities, such as 
participation at conferences. 
A certificate from the Association of Young Economists (AYE) of Georgia indicated that the petitioner 
worked for that organization "as a substitute of the chairman of Tbilisi regional organization from 2000 
till 2005 and he presented the organization in his competency with the relations of governmental or non- 
governrnenta1 organizations." Another certificate indicated that the petitioner "worked as an Economic 
Service Head from 2002 to 2003" at Poladconstruction, Ltd., in Rustavi, Georgia. A third certificate 
indicated that the petitioner "was economical consultant in L.T.D. 'Legoma' from 2001 till 2005." 
[The petitioner] was a young man, a student on his first year in Tbilisi Business and 
Marketing Institute, when he joined the Association of Young Economists of Georgia. 
He was distinguished with peculiar talents and diligence. From the very beginning he 
took on himself the responsibility to play an active part in the functioning of the 
Association. With the immediate initiative and guidance of [the petitioner], many 
important social projects had been created and implemented in the capital of Georgia. 
Among the projects that deserve attention are: "Young Economists in the Service of the 
People" and "The Center of Marketing and Management"; with the help of these 
projects people could receive free consultations as at the place, also through the 
telephone line, on Industrial-Economic Sphere, also obtain information on consumer 
market. It should be mentioned, that this project gained significant importance for the 
Society and the Economic field. 
. . . [H]e took an active part in the work of Anti-Corruption Union of Georgia. . . . 
The result of [the petitioner's] creativity and power are a few inventions; For example, 
we should mention a unique invention of "hydro-engine," which acquires particular 
significance in the agrarian industry. 
The petitioner submitted descriptions of several inventions including a life preserver, a crab trap, and 
what appears to be a human-powered helicopter. 
The petitioner's initial submission gave some idea of what the petitioner has done, but the significance 
of these accomplishments is not self-evident. Therefore, on October 15, 2008, the director instructed 
the petitioner to submit evidence to meet the guidelines published in Matter of New York State Dept. of 
Transportation. 
In response, the petitioner stated: "I am considering my activity in Economics in three different areas - 
Management, Legislation and Anti-Corruption methodology." The petitioner stated that, in the 1990s, a 
wave of immigration from former communist nations "brought . . . corruption and illegal business 
practices." He stated that he is "familiar with [the] above-mentioned 'methodology' of illegal activity." 
The petitioner also noted that he has "additional skills like inventor," but did not show the impact his 
inventions have had, or even that any of them have been commercially manufactured. 
The petitioner submitted five new letters. The exact meaning of these letters is not always entirely clear 
from the translations provided by the petitioner. The translated letter from reads, 
in part: 
He as a hardworking, expert and worthy professional characters human fast inculcated a 
place among leaders at association. . . . In other years, he actually worked as 
independent expert on economical drafi laws, as different, non-governmental 
organizations, as legislative or executive organs of country at corresponding worker 
groups. EspecialIy was important his part in such important drafi laws work as: 
"Changes about entrepreneur activities" in law, civil law, about friendships of owners of 
flat," changes about defense of rights of consumers" in law. 
A joint letter from and 
indicates that, because of the petitioner's "more than one fundamental financial recommendations, the 
company increased sale level of products and, what's more important, on the basis of request of 
customers System of Technical Service for realized products was established, what became a source of 
additional financial income for the company." 
[The petitioner] was working at Legoma Ltd for the period of 2001 -2005 years. 
Under his immediate leadership the enterprise could obtain the transited certificate of 
passenger's transport. Later with the business plan of respected [the petitioner] we took 
part and won in capital, in the called tender on the transit of passengers transport, on the 
internal civil and intertown route cars, which brought the important financial success to 
organization. 
A letter jointly signed by five members of "Independent Expert group" reads, in part: 
[The petitioner] gained experience and great knowledge in the field of business and 
marketing by wonderful talent and hard-working features. He was developed as an 
expert in post Soviet countries in the branch of marketing research in consumer market 
and thereof [the petitioner] may, as the expert in the economic field for any international 
organization-offices, consider as favourite person. 
[The petitioner] distinguishes himself by especial professional skills. 
He has higher authority over the society around him. He was a member of expert group 
from 2000 till 2005. He is among one of particular experts in Georgia and his 
professional development has a great significance for the fitwe of our country. 
Page 6 
[The petitioner] jointed the actions against corruption, contrabands and falsification. 
Against such vicious phenomenon [the petitioner] worked out the project "Shock 
Therapy," which should be considered as the main documentation in this field. 
The mentioned project make provisions for putting the corresponding mark of quality on 
the production ready for realization. Particularly, the mark of quality should serve as the 
object of state standards and for aims of control the taxpayer's incomes, which should be 
put on each production ready for realization. 
In case of any appearance of production without the corresponding mark of quality 
should applied quite serious financial sanctions for the distributors for the first time, but 
repeatedly legal liability becomes tougher. 
The director denied the petition on February 10,2009, stating that the petitioner had failed to show how 
he stands apart from other economists. On appeal, the petitioner protests that the director's "decision is 
non-detailed and just plain account of regulation," and that the director "denied my assertions without 
any explanation." 
While the director's decision is not rich with detail, it is equally true that the petitioner did not present a 
strongly coherent argument in favor of granting the waiver he seeks. The petitioner cannot reasonably 
expect a detailed rebuttal when there are no detailed claims to rebut. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence that he is a qualified and experienced economist (and apparently 
an inventor as well), but being a qualified economist (or inventor) is not an automatic basis for a 
national interest waiver. An alien member of the professions holding an advanced degree must, 
normally, have a job offer including an approved labor certification. The petitioner must set himself 
apart from others in his field in order to show that he deserves an exemption from this standard legal 
requirement. It cannot and does not suffice for the petitioner simply to lay out his credentials and state 
that a waiver is in order. 
Also, the petitioner has relied heavily on letters from witnesses who appear to have close ties to him. 
The record contains no independent, verifiable documentary evidence to support their claims of fact. 
The petitioner has not claimed, let alone demonstrated, any expertise in the United States economy. 
He has not explained how his experience and knowledge make him potentially so valuable to the 
United States that it would be in the national interest to forgo the normal channels by which alien 
professionals with advanced degrees normally immigrate to the United States. His anti-corruption 
work is meritorious, but he has not shown how his anti-corruption work in the former Soviet 
republic of Georgia will translate to the United States. His work as an inventor does not appear to 
relate directly to his intended htwe work as an economist. Even if it did, the petitioner has not 
shown that any of his inventions have progressed beyond written descriptions, nor has he 
demonstrated that these inventions serve the national interest. 
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 burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This decision is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by a labor certification issued by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting 
evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.