dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Economics And Foreign Affairs

iHfYing data deleted to 
vent clearly ~nw-ted 
inv~ion of personal privacy 
US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
V 5 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
LIN 06 258 51185 
 OCT 0 2 2009 
IN RE: 
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 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 9 103.5 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). 
eny Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
v 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's appeal fkom that 
decision. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO will 
grant the motion and affirm its dismissal of the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 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. The AAO agreed with the director's finding that the petitioner had not provided enough 
information about her intended work in the United States to permit a finding that such work merited a 
national interest waiver. 
On motion, the petitioner submits arguments from counsel, a statement from the petitioner and a letter 
from a witness. 
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 
Page 3 
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, 10 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
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 (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. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Commr. 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. § 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. 
We will not repeat our entire appellate decision here, but some details are important to give context to 
the petitioner's new submissions and arguments on motion. The petitioner filed the petition on August 
18,2006. She claimed past employment at the World Bank, the Bolivian Embassy to the United States, 
a consultancy at the Bolivian Ministry of Finance, and earlier posts in journalism and academia. In a 
statement accompanying the petition, the petitioner stated: 
I am convinced that my professional background could help in designing poverty 
alleviation programs and effective cooperation projects. Setting up productive projects 
for small and medium entrepreneurs in poor and rural areas, will diminish the influence 
of threatening left oriented ideologies, and above all, will pull the Bolivian society away 
from the illegal circuit of drugs, corruption and armed conflict. 
Counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] is among the most gifted, industrious and earnest scholars in the area of 
foreign affairs, specializing in the area of poverty reduction and bilateral relations 
between Bolivia and the United States. . . . 
[The petitioner's] high level background - her Bolivian ancestry, her education and 
career in Mexico and the United States, together puts her in a unique position where she 
has been able to directly contribute to the United States interest in significant ways, 
politically and economically. She has been intensively involved in the field of 
economics, poverty reduction and foreign relations. This is clear from her achievements 
in the diplomatic ranks in Bolivia to her most recent appointment in 2004 as Counselor 
to the Bolivian Embassy to the United States, one of the highest diplomatic assignments 
for the country. Her abilities and professional skills as an economic policy analyst and 
in charge of the relations with the United States Congress are highly in demand at the 
time being. The results of her work have already helped in the strengthening of ties 
between the United States and South America. [The petitioner] has already established 
relations with different hnk tanks and academic centers, she participated . . . in 
numerous conferences [and] international meetings, and has served as the official 
government representative on numerous occasions. . . . 
Having a knowledgeable diplomat and economist, like [the petitioner], is going to help 
maintain solid ties between Bolivia and the United States. 
In our previous discussion of counsel's statement, we stated: 
Counsel devoted considerable space to a discussion of the petitioner's past activities in 
jobs she no longer holds, but counsel did not specify what, exactly, the petitioner intends 
to do in the United States . . . [or] how the petitioner intends to reach [her stated] goals. 
Expertise in economics and international relations does not, by itself, serve the national 
interest; an alien does not merit a waiver simply by possessing such a trait. Rather, it is 
how such expertise is applied that determines the benefit to the United States. The 
petition must show that she has realistic opportunities to reduce poverty, improve 
international relations, and otherwise serve the national interest of the United States. 
Page 5 
Political Science at the Latin American and Caribbean Center at Florida Atlantic University. Prof. 
had previously served on the faculty of the Bolivian Catholic University alongside the 
petitioner. stated: "Some of [the petitioner's] academic research on poverty and 
governance has provided fresh challenges to other colleagues. . . . Her study [of] citizen perceptions is 
one of the first of its kind and has been a basic step for other investigations related to economic public 
policy in Bolivia." 
On October 29, 2007, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE). In the RFE, the director 
advised the petitioner: "The record contains little information regarding your actual proposed 
employment. . . . [Ylou do not clearly address what you will be doing in the United States." The 
director noted the petitioner's submission of letters from three potential employers, but also noted 
that these employers were in three different fields. 
In our prior dismissal notice, we had this to say about the petitioner's response to the RFE: 
In response, the petitioner submitted several new exhibits, along with an explanatory 
letter from counsel. Nowhere in this seven-page letter did counsel directly address 
the fairly basic question of what, exactly, the petitioner intends to do in the United 
States. Counsel argued repeatedly that the petitioner is an expert in various 
diplomatic and economic areas, but being an expert is not an occupation in and of 
itself. The question remains as to how the petitioner intends to apply that expertise. 
We acknowledged the petitioner's submission of a vaguely-worded courtesy letter from the Carter 
Center in Atlanta, Georgia, acknowledging the petitioner's interest in a position there. We also noted 
that, when the director asked the petitioner for information about the three potential employment 
opportunities mentioned earlier, the petitioner responded with information about yet another prospective 
employer. We stated: "The above letter does not shed fwther light on the petitioner's intended 
activities in the United States. Instead, it further muddies the waters surrounding this issue." 
In denying the petition on March 10, 2008, the director stated: "the petitioner still does not clearly 
address what she will be doing in the United States." On appeal, counsel stated that the petitioner has 
attracted "the interest of various organizations and institutions," and asserted: "It is not necessary for her 
at this time to be specifically employed in a qualifying position" (counsel's emphasis). Counsel also 
contended that the director "is unnecessarily focusing on a narrow aspect of this case. . . . The bigger 
picture of [the petition] is the extent to which her past and ongoing work has impacted the field." In the 
dismissal notice, we found: "It is simply not enough to assert that, given the petitioner's background, she 
is sure to find, eventually, a position that will, in some way yet to be determined, serve the national 
interest." 
The petitioner's appeal included a second letter from , who, on this occasion, identified 
himself as "the Managing Partner of Newlink Research, a private research firm that conducts surveys 
throughout Latin America and the Caribbean." 
 essentially repeated his first letter, adding 
a section that read, in part: 
On the basis of her experience, training, education and overall background, Newlink 
Research hired her to assist with a variety of projects. She is currently assigned to a 
project our firm has with the Mexican government. Over the course of the past two 
years, [the petitioner] has worked on the implementation of the Democratic Security 
Plan in the Democratic Security. This plan was conceived by Newlink and has been 
credited with significantly reducing the crime rate in that country. Newlink was 
fortunate to count on the experience of [the petitioner] during the design phase of the 
project and throughout the several phases of the implementation. 
Regarding this letter, we stated: 
[I]t is significant to note that the petitioner did not mention Newlink on her curriculum 
vitae or in her introductory statement in which she detailed her work experience. The 
petitioner also omitted any mention of Newlink on Form ETA-750B which instructed 
her to "List all jobs held during the last three (3) years." likewise did not 
mention Newlink in his first letter on the petitioner's behalf, even though that letter was 
written July 10,2006, during "the past two years" that preceded the new December 2007 
letter. 
The petitioner also submitted a letter from -1 formerly the Bolivian Ambassador to 
the United States, who stated: "In the first half of the year 2007, [the petitioner's] work with Newlink 
Group was mainly focused [on] democracy in Bolivia and democratic security for Central American 
Countries. Since July of that year she has been working on a Mexico project." In the dismissal notice, 
we stated: 
Like 
 does not specify the nature of the 
petitioner's "work with Newlink Group." - implies that this work 
began in 2007, which would explain its total omission from the initial filing in 2006. 
Nevertheless, it is significant that the director, in the October 2007 WE, specifically 
noted the lack of "information regarding [the petitioner's] actual proposed employment." 
The petitioner's December 2007 response to the WE contained no mention of Newlink 
whatsoever, although it is now claimed that she had been working at Newlink for most 
of 2007. Counsel does not explain why the petitioner withheld the information about 
Newlink even after the director specifically asked about the petitioner's employment 
after she left the Bolivian Embassy in 2006. 
We concluded: 
The petitioner's latest submission on appeal does not resolve the concerns raised by the 
director. The assertion that the petitioner is an experienced and well-connected expert in 
Bolivian-U.S. relations cannot compensate for the absence of coherent evidence to show 
what, exactly, the petitioner intends to do in the United States, let alone that it is in the 
national interest for the petitioner do so instead of a qualified United States worker. 
On motion, counsel states: "The main issue in both the denial and the [dismissal] of the appeal is that 
the Officer and the AAO officer were not sure what [the petitioner] would be doing in the US to utilize 
her skills. First, I wish to say that we gave ample evidence in this regard. We [documented] several job 
offers." The job offers, however, were in several different fields; the prospective employers were a 
financial organization, a law firm, and a newspaper. Documenting three widely divergent job offers 
does not clarify the petitioner's intended avenue of employment. 
Counsel states that the petitioner "gave ample evidence of what [her] skills can be used for," but this, 
once again, does not answer the question at hand. We have previously made it clear that vague, general 
declarations of expertise are not sufficient to qualify the petitioner for the waiver. On motion, counsel 
responds with a vague, general declaration about the petitioner's expertise. 
The petitioner states that she was not authorized to work for United States employers (as opposed to the 
Bolivian Embassy) until three months after she filed the petition, and therefore "it wasn't possible for 
me to accept any job offer or get involved in any formal working relationship." It seems that the 
petitioner, here, fails to comprehend the basis for denial and dismissal. The issue was not the 
petitioner's employment status at the time she filed the petition, but rather the apparent lack of any firm 
plan for what she would do once she eventually was able to work in the United States. The inability to 
immediately accept a job offer would not have prevented employers from making such offers, subject to 
qualifying immigration status. The director did not deny the petition because the petitioner lacked a 
firm job offer. Rather, the director found that the petitioner had not satisfactorily explained what she 
intended to do or how it would benefit the United States. When asked for information about the first 
three job offers she described, the petitioner responded by implying that a fourth job offer existed 
(although the record does not show that the Carter Center ever expressed fwther interest in employing 
the petitioner). 
Counsel contends that "to require information regarding what [the petitioner] will do in the US after 
approval flies in the face of the statute." We disagree, noting that the statutory language requires aliens 
to "prospectively benefit" the United States. The petitioner need not produce a specific job offer, but it 
cannot suffice to claim a generalized skill set and imply that she is still deciding between working as a 
financial consultant or as a newspaper columnist. We also will not conclude that anyone possessing a 
diverse skill set must presumptively qualify for the waiver by virtue of those skills. 
While counsel correctly acknowledges that the petitioner must be eligible as of the petition's filing date, 
she must also remain eligible after that date. The existence of a revocation mechanism, established by 
section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. $ 1155, for aliens who cease to be eligible shows that our interest in 
the petitioner's work does not and cannot end at the filing date. Eligibility at the time of filing is an 
important factor, no doubt, but not the only factor. (We stress that this argument is not a concession 
that the petitioner was eligible as of the filing date.) 
The petitioner states that she "was hired by Newlink Group [in] January 2007." She describes Newlink 
Group as "a strategic communications agency working with US, Hispanic and Latin American clients 
across the Americas. Among other areas, Newlink has . . . political and research branches that produce 
research pieces, design political campaigns and elaborate strategic public policies for its clients." 
The petitioner submits a new letter from 
 who states that he has assembled "a 
team of high profile professionals under the name of New World Advisors," intended "to build new 
economic and political bridges that will help to over mount the current economic situation. . . . [The 
petitioner] joined New World Advisors in June 2008. At this time, besides some managerial tasks she 
- 
is working on governmental relations projects as well as on political and economic risk analysis for our 
clients." asserted that the petitioner's expertise "is extremely valuable" "[flor a 
firm in its first steps." 
An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time 
of filing the application or petition. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.2(b)(l). A petitioner may not make material 
changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition 
conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Commr. 1998); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Comrnr. 1971), which require that beneficiaries seeking 
employrnent-based immigrant classification must possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing 
date of the visa petition. 
Here, nothing the petitioner has submitted on motion demonstrates that the petition was approvable at 
the time of filing in August 2006. Apart from this issue, the petitioner has not established how it is in 
the national interest to ensure that she, rather than another qualified worker, fills the positions at 
Newlink and New World Advisors. Witnesses have simply indicated that the petitioner's background 
has suited her well for those positions. 
Also, we note that the director, in the WE, had asked specific questions about the petitioner's intended 
future work, and the petitioner, at that time, did not adequately address those questions. Because the 
petitioner already had the opportunity to clarify these issues, it is too late for the petitioner to attempt to 
do so now. See Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988); Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 537 (BIA 1988) (evidence requested prior to the decision will not be considered when 
submitted for the first time on appeal). 
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. The petitioner has not shown that she 
qualified for the waiver at the time she filed the petition, or that the previous appellate decision was in 
error based on the evidence available at the time. Accordingly, we affirm our prior dismissal of the 
appeal. 
ORDER: 
 The AAO's decision of January 6,2009 is affirmed. The petition is denied.