dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: English

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLlCCOP'/ 
FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: DEC 1 Ii 2D1O 
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. § IIS3(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file 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 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion s~s to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~(f~ 
-z..-Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as an instructor. 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 offer would be in the national interest 
of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief that includes several citations to unpublished decisions by this 
office. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all uscrs 
employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
Counsel's specific assertions will be addressed below. For the reasons discussed in this decision, we 
uphold the director's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the 
benefit sought. More specifically, the petitioner relies on projections of future influence in the field 
rather than submitting evidence that he has any track record of success already. 
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. 
(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. 
As of the date of filing, the petitioner was a Ph.D. student at the College of William and Mary while 
also serving as a lecturer at Bowdoin College. On appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence that the 
petitioner also had an offer for a tenure-track instructor position at the College of the Holy Cross for the 
2009-2010 academic year. The petitioner holds a Master's degree in English from Clark University. 
The petitioner's occupation falls within the pertinent 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. 
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 nnmber and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, IOlst 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 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 Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. [d. at 217. Next, the petitioner must show 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. 
On appeal, counsel references a footnote in NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218, n.4. Specifically, the main 
text of the decision states: "The labor certification process exists because protecting the jobs and job 
opportunities of U.S. workers having the same objective minimum qualifications as an alien seeking 
employment is in the national interest." [d. at 218. The decision then includes the following footnote: 
A limited exception to the minimum requirements rule exists, as set forth in Department 
of Labor regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 656.21a, (A U.S. college or university seeking to fill 
a teaching position can establish that the alien was found, through a competitive 
Page 4 
recruitment and selection process, to be more qualified that U.S. applicants.) This 
exception does not apply in this case.l 
Counsel then discusses the College of Holy Cross' recruitment process prior to offering the petitioner 
an instructor position. Counsel concludes: 
Clearly, [the petitioner] was found to be "more qualified than U.S. applicants" as a 
result of a competitive recruitment and selection process. 20 C.F.R. § 656.21a. As the 
position is one for a college professor, it is this "more qualified" test that applies to the 
recruitment as verified at footnote 4 of NYSDOT. Therefore, the denial by the director 
based on [the petitioner] having failed to show no "minimally qualified" U.S. workers 
were able to fill the position is in direct conflict with both the Department of Labor 
regulations and the finding of NYSDOT. 
Counsel seriously mischaracterizes NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 21S, the role of the Department of Labor 
versus the role of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (UserS) and the director's decision. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 2lS, discusses the Department of Labor's role and the purpose of the alien 
employment certification process at length. As the alien employment certification process, 
administered by the Department of Labor, already exists to determine the availability of U.S. workers, 
the existence of a shortage or the possession of qualifications required for the position cannot serve as 
the basis for a waiver of that process in the national interest. Id. at 2lS. The decision subsequently 
reiterates that the "issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under 
the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor." !d. at 221. As USCIS has no jurisdiction to determine a 
shortage of U.S. workers with the minimum qualifications, any attempt by the director to address that 
issue would have been in error. In fact, the director correctly made no conclusion as to whether or not 
such a shortage exists. Instead, the director concluded that any objective qualifications for the position 
could be listed on an application for alien employment certification and, thus, the petitioner's 
qualification for the job was not determinative. The director further concluded that the petitioner had 
not established that the benefits of his skills or background outweigh the national interest of protecting 
available U.S. workers inherent in the alien employment certification process. 
The only logical result of counsel's reliance on footnote 4 is that petitioners seeking a waiver for a 
teaching position at a college or university have a greater burden than the one set forth in NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. at 217-lS. Specifically, the Department of Labor regulation at 20 C.F.R. § 656.1S(b) does 
not require a college or university to show that qualified U.S. workers are unavailable. It can suffice, 
instead, to show that the alien is the most qualified applicant. If, as counsel claims, the petitioner is, in 
fact, the most qualified applicant for the position, then the existing Department of Labor regulations 
already take the alien's situation into account. Counsel has not explained why even this requirement 
(easily satisfied if the petitioner is, in fact, the best qualified for the position) should be waived solely 
1 The relevant Department of Labor regulation is now 20 C.F.R. § 656.18. 
Page 5 
because the alien is the best qualified candidate. Rather, under counsel's logic, the petitioner would 
need to demonstrate that he would serve the national interest to a greater extent than a more qualified 
U.S. worker. Nevertheless, we do not interpret footnote 4 as placing a greater burden on those who 
seek a teaching position at a U.S. college or university. Thus, we will apply the standards set forth in 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217-18 to the matter before us. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, fresh scholarly 
analysis of African Diaspora literature. The director did not contest that the proposed benefits of the 
petitioner's work would be national in scope. On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner is 
teaching students who will "presumably go on to work throughout the United States" and that his 
"research activities will likewise be shared by scholars nationwide." While education is in the 
national interest, the impact of a single schoolteacher at the national level is too negligible for 
purposes of waiving the alien employment certification process. Id. at 217, n.3 (using the example 
of a teacher at an elementary school with no suggestion that the reasoning does not apply to teachers 
at the secondary or postsecondary level). We are not persuaded that the eventual movement of his 
students, true for any teacher at any level, demonstrates that his impact will be more than negligible 
at the national level. 
More persuasive with regard to the national scope issue is the potential impact of his research. While 
the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, however, the petitioner must 
establish that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 
219. 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 
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. Id. 
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. Eligibility for the 
waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position sought. In other 
words, we generally do not accept 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. NYSDOT, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 218. Moreover, it cannot suffice 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. As stated above, the issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in 
the United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
The fact that the petitioner happens to originate from Jamaica and, thus, has cultural experiences 
similar to others from the Caribbean, is not evidence that he has or will make an impact on the field 
of African Diaspora literature. If USCIS were to accept that the petitioner's cultural experiences 
warrant approval of the waiver, USCIS would need to approve the waiver for every Caribbean 
scholar from the Caribbean. The petitioner has not established that Congress' acknowledgement of 
Page 6 
the contributions of those of Caribbean descent in a House Report warrants a blanket waiver for all 
alien literary scholars from the Caribbean. 
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 influence on the 
field as a whole. Id. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, we note 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. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
As part of an exhibit labeled "Awards for Excellence in the Field of Endeavor or Nationally or 
Internationally Recognized Prizes," the petitioner submitted evidence that Bowdoin College set up a 
travel account to help the petitioner with the costs of attending conferences. Nothing in the record 
suggests that the college set up this travel account in recognition for excellence rather than as financial 
assistance for junior faculty to attend conferences. Moreover, the petitioner submitted no evidence that 
this travel account is recognized beyond Bowdoin College. The Index of Exhibits for the initial 
submission lists faculty summer research awards, a conference award and the petitioner's positions. 
The petitioner, however, did not submit these documents. Regardless, the petitioner does not explain 
how grants, which fund future research rather than recognizing past accomplishments, and employment 
constitute "awards." 
Finally, even if we accepted that the record contained evidence of recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions to the field from peers or government, professional or business entities, such 
recognition is one of the six regulatory categories of evidence that can be used to establish exceptional 
ability pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). By statute, "exceptional 
ability" is not, by itself sufficient cause for a national interest waiver. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. 
Thus, submitting evidence relating to one criterion, or even the requisite three criteria, pertaining to 
that classification cannot establish that waiving the alien employment certification process is in the 
national interest. Id. at 222. 
lUlllll.<;;U an assignment as an 
aSSiel1s that this journal is "the flagship publi(;ati.on 
undergraduate degree from this university. 
as an assistant editor, the petitioner "read, sub-edited and ev:aluate:o 
journal. The record contains no evidence regarding the number of assistant editors the journal utilizes 
or whether the assistant editors primarily consist of students at UWI. Without additional evidence, the 
petitioner cannot establish that this position, held before he presented or published any of his work, 
demonstrates the influence of that work in the field. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he presented his work at Clark University, where he obtained his 
Master's Degree, and at a conference in Portugal. The petitioner also submitted a copy of his article 
published in Caribbean Quarterly in 1999. In response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, counsel asserts that the quantity of the petitioner's publications is less important than the 
quality. Even if true, it is the petitioner's burden to establish the influence of the petitioner's work in 
the field. Regardless of whether the petitioner's ability to secure publication of his article in Caribbean 
Quarterly while still a graduate student is noteworthy, at issue is the ultimate influence of this work 
once published and disseminated. The petitioner submitted an article in Gender and History by _ 
_ that footnotes the petitioner's 1999 article as one of two views on violence against women in 
lyrics. The petitioner also submitted a dissertation by a student at SIT Jamaica that lists the petitioner's 
1999 article as a reference. These two citations cannot demonstrate that the petitioner's pUblication 
record is indicative of a track record of success with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
The remaining evidence consists of reference letters, all from the petitioner's colleagues, friends and 
neighbors, some of whom have no expertise in the petitioner's field. Primarily, these letters attest to 
the petitioner's character, the importance of his area of study, his cultural experiences, his talent as a 
teacher and mentor and the likely impact his dissertation and a hypothetical future book will have once 
published. While we will discuss a representative sample of these letters in more depth below, these 
letters fail to explain how the petitioner has already influenced his field beyond his immediate circle of 
colleagues. 
Professor_ discusses the issues arising from diversity facing today's youth and states: 
[The petitioner's 1 academic investigations informed by such challenges have long 
enough forced him to proceed to action in his dissemination of findings to and among 
the high school and university students he has had the privilege to teach. This makes 
him an invaluable instructor and mentor to members of a young generation whose 
appreciation of diversity, strength of character, textured sensibility and psychic balance 
can only result in values of tolerance, mutual respect, understanding and generosity of 
spirit one to another - all of which many in the academy now see as vital to the spread 
of knowledge and the development of a world of creative rather than of disintegrative 
tension. 
This florid language, when examined for its ultimate meaning, appears limited to pralsmg the 
petitioner's personal motivation and style of teaching. This language does not address the relevant 
issue of how the petitioner's work is perceived in the field beyond the petitioner's immediate circle of 
colleagues and students. Professor _ goes on to describe the petitioner as a model 
undergraduate student who completed his Master's degree "with great credit." Professor •••• 
notes that as the editor he published one of the petitioner'S graduate papers. 
Professor _ states: 
Page 8 
[The petitioner's 1 source of investigation has been the literature of Africa-America and 
the tremendous insights which this area of African-American creative endeavors 
provides in the quest for cultural certitude and a sense of self for a people who have 
survived the anguish over a half a millennium of a form of marginalization that has 
denied to millions selfhood and a sense of place and purpose. 
Once again, this language addresses the importance of the petitioner's area of study rather than 
explaining how the petitioner himself has influenced this area of study. 
In addition, Professor _ discusses the petitioner's personal attributes such as his "intellectual 
curiosity, capacity for deep-structured analysis, power of concentration and focused energy in the 
pursuit of knowledge." While Professor concludes that these attributes "qualified him to 
pursue serious graduate work at the Ph.D. level", he does not explain why being qualified to pursue a 
Ph.D. warrants a waiver of the alien employment certification process in the national interest. 
Finally, Professor _ concludes: 
To his further advantage is the rather remarkable grasp he has of the forces which have 
shaped the Americas in the Hemisphere's development over the past half a millennium 
and the pivotal role played by the African presence in that shaping, ifnot in terms of the 
material achievements, certainly with respect to the sense and sensibility honed 
throughout the process of severance, suffering and survival. Much of African-American 
literature speaks to this reality, as does life in general in the Americas. He would be an 
asset to any teaching progranune designed to facilitate participants in making sense of 
the shifting paradigms and winds of change evidence in the myriad discourses that now 
challenge all who tenant the Americas towards greater and deeper understanding of self 
and society. He will be greatly appreciated by his students as well as by colleague 
researchers like myself. 
While we do not question Professor _ SUbjective opinion of the petitioner's abilities, his 
letter simply does not provide any examples of how the petitioner's work is already influencing the 
field. Rather, he speculates that the petitioner is capable of influencing the field in the future. 
obtained his Master's degree. 
Bowdoin where the petitioner was teachmg of filing, 
publi:sh(:d an article the petitioner completed during his Master's studies. Dr. 
not discuss the influence of this article. In fact, none of the references explain 
how the petitioner's research completed at Clark University has influenced the field. 
The petitioner submitted letters from colleagues and parents of the petitioner's students at Mercersburg 
Academy. For example, asserts that the 
Page 9 
petitioner is a "superb teacher and researcher" and that many of the school's students "were able to 
benefit from his gifts as a teacher." Mr. _ concludes that petitioner is a teacher "who has already 
been making a significant mark on American education through his work at Mercersburg and, more 
recently, at Bowdoin College." USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions 2 While these 
letters attest to the petitioner's skill as a teacher and assert in general terms that it is in the national 
interest to recruit gifted teachers, we reiterate that it is only the petitioner's research that can provide 
benefits that are national in scope. None of the letters regarding the petitioner's teaching success at 
Mercersburg Academy suggest that the petitioner influenced the teaching of those subjects at the 
national level such as by creating curricula widely adopted or under consideration at multiple 
independent institutions. 
As of the date of filing, the petitioner had completed the requirements for a Ph.D. at the College of 
William and Mary with the exception of his dissertation. The petitioner did not provide letters from 
any professors at the College of William and Mary. Several colleagues at Bowdoin College, where the 
petitioner was teaching as of the date of filing, discuss the petitioner's pending dissertation. These 
letters speculate as to the petitioner's future impact in the field. For example, Dr. a 
professor at Bowdoin College, that the petitioner'S dissertation addresses maroon 
subjectivities in the writings of a leading figure in the Harlem Renaissance. Dr. 
_ asserts that the petitioner's "reading writing is brilliantly original and distinctive, 
and once it is completed and published, will have a powerful impact on his field of African American 
literary study." Subsequently, Dr. _ asserts that when the petitioner's dissertation is complete 
and he secures a position at the College of Holy Cross, "he will be able to revise his research and 
publish a book that will not only illuminate one of the canonic authors of the Harlem Renaissance but 
help shift the very terms in which we interpret the field." Once again, while the waiver may promote 
future contributions by the alien who receives it, the waiver is not designed to facilitate the entry of an 
alien with no demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be 
entirely speCUlative. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219. 
asserts that the petitioner's 
. cannot complete his 
dissertation without permanent residency in the United States. Counsel cites no authority, and we 
know of none, that suggests the national interest waiver was designed to facilitate the completion of 
promising dissertations by aliens with no track record of success and influence in the field as a whole. 
discusses the college's reasons for wanting to hire the petitioner. 
scholarly work, Dr. _ asserts that it is an "emergent field, with much of the most interesting work 
being done by comparatively young scholars." R~ss, it is still the petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate his influence in this emerging field. Dr. _ concludes that the petitioner's work "has 
already had an impact" and cites, as examples of this impact, quotes from reference letters from Dr. 
2 See 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9,15 (D.C. Dis!. 1990). 
Page 10 
_and a professor at the College of William and Mary on which the College of the Holy Cross 
relied when considering the petitioner for employment. The two quotes follow: 
[The petitioner's] research gives us what African-American studies has at times yearned 
for, and at times resided: a diasporic interpretation of the African-American cultural 
experience itself. [ ... ] [He] is clearly poised to revise an entire series of cultural 
assumptions. [Professor 
[The petitioner] is writing the sort of brilliant and bold transnational work we often talk 
about but rarely do. [Professor of William and Mary] 
Contrary to the characterizations of Dr. _neither quote explains how the petitioner has already 
influenced the field beyond his immediate circle of colleagues and students. 
The most independent letter is from Dr. a senior professor of French Studies at 
Georgetown University. Dr. confirms that the petitioner approached Dr._for information 
about the topographic details of the city of Marseille and has consulted with Dr. _"on many 
historical or contemporary local facts which may have inspired the author." Dr._concludes: 
Indeed, [the petitioner's] research brings considerable historical and sociological 
perspectives on the African Caribbean literary experience in the United States. In my 
opinion, this is the kind of academic contribution that will increase greater 
understanding of migrant peoples making up the cultural and social fabric of the United 
States: what better reason to provide [the petitioner] with the necessary authorization to 
stay here. 
In short, I am convinced that his research and PhD dissertation will bring an indubitable 
impact on the knowledge and understanding of works such as Home to Harlem, Banjo 
or Banana Bottom. 
The issue is not whether the petitioner's presence in the United States could serve the national interest 
but whether waiving the alien employment certification process, the normal requirement for a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree, is in the national interest. Once again, Dr._merely 
speculates that the petitioner's dissertation, once completed, and a hypothetical book will eventually 
influence the field. Without evidence of a past track record of success with some degree of influence 
on the field as a whole, however, such speCUlation is insufficient grounds for waiving the alien 
employment certification process in the national interest. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence and again on appeal, counsel cites 
unpublished decisions by this office as to the significance of letters. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) 
provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of 
the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
· , 
Page II 
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 of S-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." !d. 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. 1136 (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 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. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; uscrs may, as we have 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. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'\. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above, from close colleagues, the parents of students, friends and neighbors, 
primarily contain bare assertions of future national benefit without providing specific examples of 
how the petitioner has already influenced the field. Merely repeating the legal standard for the 
benefit sought does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.3 The petitioner failed to submit 
sufficient corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could 
have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
The record shows that the petitioner is respected by his immediate circle of colleagues and students 
and is pursuing original research in an important area of scholarship. The record, however, contains 
little in the way of specific evidence to show what improvements the petitioner has already wrought 
in his field of endeavor. 
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 
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 
J Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), ajfd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr ASSOCiates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.NY.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conc1usory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at IS. 
Page 12 
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. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by an alien employment certification certified by the Department of Labor, appropriate 
supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.