dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Engineering

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarr~nted 
invasion of personal pnvacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
APR 21 2011 
IN RE Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. ()epartmcnt of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Sen.· ices 
Adlllinistr<ltive Appeals Oni.::c (i\!\O) 
20 Massachusetts Ave .. N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
36 
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. S 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SEI.F-REPRESENTED 
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 law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may tile a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submittcd to the office that originally decided your case by tiling a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee 01'$630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. S 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~i0...A-""""~'()~ 
:5 Perry Rhew . 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeaL The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.c. § IIS3(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as an engineer. The petitioner asserts 
that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an alien employment 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 had 
not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job otTer would be in the national interest 
of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director denied the petition solely because of the limited 
number of citations of the petitioner'S work and failed to give sufficient weight to the remaining 
evidence. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO upholds the director's ultimate conclusion that 
the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the benefit sought. 
LLaw 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(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. 
(8) Waiver of job otTer. 
(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, proIessions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
Page 3 
II. Prior Nonimmigrant Visa Approval 
At the outset, the AAO acknowledges that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) has 
approved at least one 0-1 nonimmigrant visa petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. The prior 
approval, however. does not preclude USCIS from denying an immigrant visa petition based on a 
different standard. It must be noted that many 1-140 immigrant petitions are denied after USCIS 
approves prior nonimmigrant petitions. See, e.g.. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d 25 
(D.D.C. 2(03); IKEA US v. US Dept. o(Justice, 48 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D.D.C. 1999); Fedin Brothers 
Co. Ud v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989). Because USCIS spends less time reviewing 1-
129 nonimmigrant petitions than 1-140 immigrant petitions, some nonimmigrant petitions are simply 
approved in error. Q Data Consulting, Inc. v. INS, 293 F. Supp. 2d at 29-30; see also Texas A&M 
Univ. v. Upchurch, 99 Fed. Appx. 556, 2004 WL 1240482 (5th Cir. 2004) (finding that prior 
approvals do not preclude uscrs from denying an extension of the original visa based on a 
reassessment of petitioner's qualifications). 
The AAO is not required to approve applications or petltlOns where eligibility has not been 
demonstrated, merely because of prior approvals that may have been erroneous. See, e.g., Matter of 
Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593, 597 (Comm'r. 1988). It would be absurd to 
suggest that users or any agency must treat acknowledged errors as binding precedent. Sussex 
£ngg. Ltd v. Montgomery, 825 F.2d 1084, 1090 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1008 (1988). 
Furthermore, the AAO's authority over the service centers is comparable to the relationship between 
a court of appeals and a district court. Thus, the AAO is not be bound to follow the contradictory 
decision of a service center. Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, 2000 WL 282785 (E.D. La.). 
a/I'd, 248 F .3d 1139 (5th Cir. 200 I), cert denied, 122 S.C!. 51 (2001). 
Moreover. if the previous nonimmigrant petition was approved based on the same unsupported 
assertions that are contained in the current record, the approval would constitute material and gross 
error on the part of the director. For example, the petitioner has asserted that he is a member of 
associations that require "outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
and international experts in their disciplines or fields." This language mirrors the regulatory evidentiary 
requirement for nonimmigrant aliens of extraordinary ability at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(0)(2)(iii)(A)(2). The 
record, however, does not support the contention that the associations of which the petitioner is a 
member require such achievements of their members. 
III. Eligibility for the Classification Sought 
Initially, the petitioner indicated that the beneficiary qualities as an alien of exceptional ability. This 
issue is moot. however. because the record establishes that the petitioner holds a Doctor of Engineering 
degree !fom the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. The petitioner's occupation falls within the 
regulatory definition of a profession. The petitioner thus qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue is whether the petitioner has established that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus an alien employment certification, is in the national 
interest. 
IV. National Interest Waiver 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress 
did not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "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, 101 st Cong .. 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT). published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29. 1991). states. in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as tlexible 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. 
Maller of'New York State Dep't. of'Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Comm·r. 1998) (hereinafter 
·'NYSDOT"). has set forth several factors that USCIS must consider 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. Jd. at 217. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. Jd. 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. Jd. at 217-18. 
It must bc noted that. while the national interest waiver hinges on pro,peclive national benefIt, the 
petitioner must establish that the alien's past record justifies projections offuture benefIt to the national 
interest. Jd. at 219. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the 
national interest cannot suffice to establish prospective national benetit. The term "prospective" 
requires future contributions by the alien and does not facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entire Iv 
speculative. Jd 
The AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit. 
nanotechnology engineering, and that the proposed benefits of his work, improved manufacturing 
techniques for nanocomposites, would be national in scope. It remains, then, to determine whether 
the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an available U.S. worker with 
the same minimum qualifications. 
Page 5 
Eligibility for the waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position 
sought. [n other words, the argument that a given project is so important that any alien qualified to 
work on this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver is not persuasive. NYSDOT, 22 
[&N Dec. at 218. Moreover, it cannot sutlice to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a 
"unique background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the 
national interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the 
United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. !d. at 221. 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of int1uence on the 
field as a whole. ld. at 219, n. 6. [n evaluating the petitioner's achievements, the AAO notes that 
original innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. !d. at 221, n. 7. 
The petitioner submitted evidence he is a 
petitioner is also a student member of the 
Professional memberships are merely one type of evidence that can be submitted to establish eligibility 
as an alien of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(3)(ii)(E). Because exceptional ability, by itself; 
does not justify a waiver of the alien employment certification requirement, arguments hinging on 
professional memberships, while relevant, are not dispositive to the matter at hand. NYSDOT. 22 [&N 
Dec. at 222. As stated above, the petitioner asserted that the above associations require "outstanding 
achievements of their members." As explained below, the record does not support this assertion or 
even suggest that these memberships are indicative of an int1uence in the field. 
asserts that prospective members "must be 
actively engaged in work relating to the research and development of advanced materials or materials 
processes." The TMS materials reveal that "professional members" are required to hold at least a 
baccalaureate degree in a relevant field and be actively engaged in the profession. AIST membership is 
open to producers, suppliers and those employed in academia. An undergraduate degree and 
employment in the field are not outstanding achievements; nor do they ret1ect an inf1uence in the field. 
The petitioner did not submit the membership requirements for AIChE, but the materials the petitioner 
did submit reveal that it boasts 40,000 members. The petitioner also did not submit the student 
membership requirements for SPE. Significantly, however, SPE boasts a membership of 20,000. 
Moreover, the petitioner was only a student member of SPE. None of the above memberships are 
indicative of the petitioner's inf1uence in the field. 
Page 6 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he has reviewed manuscripts submitted lor potential publication. 
Some of the email invitations to perform these reviews request that if the petitioner is unable to 
the review that he recommend "two other possible reviewers with expertise in this area." Dr. 
a professor at the University of Connecticut and an editor of Polymer Engineering and 
Science, asserts that after accepting the petitioner's manuscript for publication, invited him to 
review technical papers. 
Peer reviewed scientific journals rely on numerous volunteers to review the manuscripts submitted for 
publication. Journals seek reviewers with expertise in the relevant area of research such that the 
reviewers are knowledgeable in the area. None of the evidence suggests that the journals tor which the 
petitioner has reviewed manuscripts rely on a small number of reviewers with demonstrated influence 
in the field rather than a large pool of reviewers who have published in the tield. Thus, the review 
requests cannot establish the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Initially, the petitioner asserted that he had authored 17 "scholarly articles/publications/technical reports 
appearing in leading journals in the field of nanotechnology and internally with the corporate structure." 
The petitioner referenced exhibits 3 and 4. Exhibit 3 is his curriculum vitae. This selt:serving 
document cannot establish the authorship claimed. Moreover, the petitioner included on his curriculum 
vitae his unpublished Master thesis and doctoral dissertation as two of his "publications." The 
petitioner also included nine internal reports tor Samsung in the 1990's and a 2001 Field Lab report, 
as~;et1ts that the petitioner was 
that these reports contained 
proprietary infonmation and, thus, were not appropriate tor publication. _asserts that the 
petitioner's previous coworkers subsequently completed work the petitioner initiated and published the 
tinal results. _sserts that this work has garnered citations. 
Attestations in the fonm of an affidavit are only acceptable as evidence where the petitioner documents 
that primary and secondary evidence is both unavailable or does not exist. 8 C.F.R, § 103.2(b)(2). 
While the AAO recognizes that the internal reports are proprietary, the petitioner failed to submit the 
cover pages documenting his authorship. Regardless, authorship of internal reports does not inherently 
demonstrate an influence in the field. The petitioner has not documented that San1sung's use of the 
inforn1ation in the reports has int1uenced the field, such as trade media coverage of Samsung's 
innovations based on the petitioner's work. 
Exhibit 4 contains five published articles coauthored by the petItIoner. The record also contains 
evidence of the petitioner's conterence presentations, While this documentation establishes that the 
petitioner disseminated his work in the tield, at issue is its influence once disseminated. In response to 
the director's request lor additional evidence, the petitioner submitted five articles that cite the 
petitioner's work. One of these articles had yet to appear online and another was still "under review:' 
The petitioner must establish his eligibility as of the date oftiling. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12): 
Maller oj Kalighak. 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). As of that date, three articles had 
cited the petitioner's work. 
, a professor at the is the author of one of the citing 
articles. She also provides a letter in support of the petItion stating that she is "adapting the 
quantification method for the quality of nanocomposites ... and it helped my research with great 
impact." Her article, which cites two of the petitioner's articles more than once, is consistent with her 
claim to have applied the petitioner's method. The fact that one independent researcher has found the 
petitioner's work useful does not, however, demonstrate that the petitioner has already had some 
influencc on the tield as a whole. 
The director noted the small number of citations in the record. The director further noted the 
petitioner's assertion that one of the authors citing his work, , has himself been cited 
2,500 times. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that citations should not serve as the sole basis of 
eligibility. The petitioner submits evidence that a search of name and the word 
"nanocomposites" produces a list of 12 articles that have been cited no more than 15 times per article. 
The AAO acknowledges that some of the petitioner's work involves proprietary issues that are not 
amenable to publication and concur with the petitioner that a small number of citations does not 
preclude eligibility. That said, it is still the petitioner's burden to demonstrate his influence in the tield. 
If the citation evidence is not indicative of such an influence, the petitioner must submit alternative 
evidence documenting that intl uence. 
The remaining evidence consists of reference letters. An evaluation of these letters, must take into 
account the inherent duties of a materials engineer. The Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook (OOH) states that engineers in general develop solutions to technical problems and new 
products. See hltp:!!www.bls.goy/oco/ocos027.htm#nature (accessed April 14,2011 and incorporated 
into the record of proceeding). The OOH provides the following description of the petitioner's 
occupation: 
Materials engineers are involved in the development, processing, and testing of the 
materials used to create a range of products, from computer chips and aircraft wings 
to golf clubs and snow skis. They work with metals, ceramics, plastics, 
semiconductors, and composites to create new materials that meet certain mechanical, 
electrical, and chemical requirements. They also are involved in selecting materials 
for new applications. Materials engineers have developed the ability to create and 
then study materials at an atomic level, using advanced processes to replicate the 
characteristics of those materials and their components with computers. Most 
materials engineers specialize in a particular material. For example, metallurgical 
engineers spccialize in metals such as steel, and ceramic engineers develop ceramic 
materials and the processes for making them into useti.Il products such as glassware or 
tiber-optic communication lines. 
Page 8 
ld. Thus, the novelty of the petitioner's work does not inherently distinguish his work from that of 
other engineers and materials engineers. 
As stated above, discusses the petitioner's previous work at Samsung, which predates his 
second Master's degree and his Ph.D. While asserts that Samsung promoted the petitioner to 
an assistant manager, the petitioner lists his position there as "research fellow." _asserts that 
the petitioner proposed and conducted "the research for the effect of byproduct gas on the oxidative 
catalytic process." _sserts that Sam sung kept this research "as a confidential trade secret" but 
does not suggest that the petitioner is listed as an inventor on a patent or patent application. _ 
further asserts that the petitioner ef1ectively solved the difficulty of liltering undissolved parts of a 
solution at high temperature and pressure, which had stopped process development at Samsung. Mr. 
~sserts that the petitioner's solution increased productivity and was "highly referred for other 
process development activities." This sentence is ambiguous and does not demonstrate a wider 
influence beyond Samsung. While _ asserts that the petitioner's techniques persisted at 
Samsung even after the petitioner left, the fact that he produced useful results for his employer does not 
demonstrate his wider influence in the lield such that it lollows that the petitioner will provide benefits 
that arc national in scope rather than beneficial to a single employer. 
conlirms that he served as the 
thesis advisor. _xplains that the petitioner developed "a novel method" 
that "allows researchers and manufacturers a methodology to determine the effect of process conditions 
on the degree of mixing in a quantitative fashion." iotes that the petitioner published his 
research on this method and confirms that he has received 10 reprint requests. Reprint requests. 
however, do not demonstrate ultimate reliance on the article. 
_then discusses the petitioner's research "on understanding the eflect of proves conditions on 
the mixing of nanocomposites." _notes the challenging nature of simulating a twin screw 
extruder mixing process. states that the petitioner "~d combined comPlicated. 
theories for the missing and simplified them for convenient use." ~nly speculates, however. 
that this work "will be extremely useful for researchers in the manufacturing environment and will 
accelerate the commercialization process." _urther asserts that the body of research on the 
deVelopment of a theoretical understanding of the critical factors in the dispersion of nanofillers "would 
not be possible without the [petitioner's] expertise and dedication." _does not, however, 
explain how independent researchers or manufacturers are using this work. 
~ontinues (grammar as it appears in the original): 
problem of its new 
Last year, 
signilicant achievements resulted in recelVlng new projects. 
asked a project, funded $IOO,OOO/year, to dissolve the mixing 
lIJllllV' developments after leamed [the petitioner's 1 methodology. 
to do a project with [the Center for High-rate 
Page 9 
Nanomanufacturing at the with $500,000 fund 
for 2 years; the project is to develop antimicrobial nano,-sll 
device applications and this project should adapt [the petitioner's) research 
accomplishment entirely. These new projects starting from [the petitioner's) 
achievements are the strongest evidence for the impacts of [the petitioner's) output on 
industry and other researchers' projects. 
The record, however, lacks letters from officials at explaining their interest in 
the petitioner'S work. The only grant application in the record citing the petitioner's research lists Dr. 
_as a co-investigator. The fact that the center where the petitioner did his doctoral research will 
continue to build upon his research does not demonstrate his wider influence in the field. 
an()th(~r professor at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, asserts generally: "Many 
research projects utilized and adopted [the petitioner's) polymer processing and the microscopic 
characterization." _provides no examples and does not specify whether these projects were 
internal to the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, or at independent institutions. iiscusses 
the peer review process and concludes that publication alone demonstrates the petitioner's contributions 
to the field. As stated above, while publication demonstrates dissemination in the field, at issue is the 
ultimate influence of those publications once disseminated. While~pines that the petitioner's 
research will subsequently gamer "heavy and dominant" citation, this assertion is highly speculative. 
notes the petitioner's academic accomplishments, such as his grade point average. 
fH;"U't:IIlIC performance, however, measured by such criteria as grade point average, cannot alone 
satisfy the national interest threshold or assure substantial prospective national benefit. In all cases 
the petitioner must demonstrate specific prior achievements that establish the alien's ability to 
benetit the national interest. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. 
at South 
explains that the currently works for_ 
uses the facilities at .lIIiill ••••••• xplains the problem 
not freely mix with plastics and asserts that the petItI,on'~r "has made 
significant improvements in the quality of mixing of the composites." does not explain 
how this work is already inf1uencing the field. 
a Senior Scientist at a 
For example, he many area will 
be using [his 1 lindings in their proposed industrial research and development projects and National 
Science Foundation funded research projects as weI!." _ontinues that the petitioner's "current 
research involvement at ~ill be a critical step toward nanocomposite manufacturing and 
applications for cheap, products such as all plastic and polymer related 
produced you could find in _also projects that the defense/aerospace 
industry "would be directly benefited by [the petitioner's) research and outputs fi-om his activity" and 
Page 10 
that his investigation of carbon nanotubes in plastics "will make a new generation of advanced 
material." These statements appear highly speculative. 
_ also discusses the petitioner's optimization techniques and states that "many companies 
developing nano related products seek expert tcchnical advice from [the petitioner] when they develop 
new products." does not identify any of these "many companies." _does confirm that 
the petitioner's "consulting work for elastomeric nanofiber materials was essential in conducting 
research projects in one of our research programs designed to provide protection to soldiers from 
chemical and biological attacks." _oes not explain how Foster-Miller applied the petitioner's 
work. Moreover, such consulting services would not demonstrate the petitioner's influence beyond 
Massachusetts. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted two new letters. 
professor at the University of Dayton, asserts that the petitioner's research 
"has a great deal of impact on other researchers and has inlluenced and enhanced research and 
development in the field of manufacturing." 
In spite of their relatively short period of public disclosure, [the petitioner's] 
publications are already cited by famous research groups which follow his research 
closely. His findings are also significantly utilized by other research groups, as well as 
many companies, to solve the problems they experience during the manufacture of 
nanocomposites, such as silver nanocomposites and carbon nanotube composites. 
not identify these "other research groups" or the companies that are using the 
work. The record contains live citations, only one of which demonstrates significant 
reliance on the petitioner's work, and the letters discussed in this decision, only two of which are Irom 
company representatives. 
AC.cnroing to his curriculum 
and coauthored articles 
Many research projects are utilizing [the petitioner's] 
optimization steps with Specilic Energy Input for process using 
a twin screw extruder. To tell the truth, the majority of researches in academia are not 
very useful for industry. But the results from [the petitioner's] research are essential to 
industrial applications. You will not find many printed articles about [the petitioner's] 
works since industry doesn't allow publishing its trade secrets. Instead you will be able 
to lind casily many products employment his works in the near future. 
_does not identify any of the "many" research projects "';!;7;nn npl;';"n"r' c Skewness 
Index or following his optimization steps. does not 'Ut;b~'~ is currently 
Page 11 
applying the petitioner's work. Regardless, such application would not demonstrate the petitioner's 
influence beyond his immediate circle of current and past colleagues. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter IJjS-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. I 136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Maller 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the tinal 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 the AAO has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. ld. at 795; see a/so Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Maller o/Treasure Crafi o/CalifiJrnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'1. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of ability without providing specific 
examples of how the petitioner's innovations have influenced the field. Merely repeating the legal 
standards does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof] While it is clear that has 
found the petitioner's work useful, this one example does not support the assertions in the record of 
more widespread use of the petitioner's methods and techniques. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be 
shown to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientific community. Moreover, as discussed above, developing novel materials and processes are 
inherent to the petitioner's position as a materials engineer. It does not follow that every engineer 
who develops techniques that add to the general pool of knowledge inherently serves the national 
interest to an extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
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 ajob 
I Fedin Bros. Co., 724 F. Supp. at 1108, aff'd, 905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 
188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756. Inc v. 
The Auomey General of the United Slates, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 12 
otTer 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 alien employment 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.