dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Environmental Engineering

identifying data ieleted to 
prevent clt:arl)' unwarranted 
brvasion ofpersonal pri~y 
PUBLIC COpy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 0 2 2011 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § lI53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF·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 
infonnation 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 Fonn I-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 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, 
c:::PerryRhew 
rchief, 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. § l153(b )(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a postdoctoral research fellow. 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, the petitioner submits a statement and additional evidence. For the reasons discussed 
below, we uphold the director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established his 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Section 203(b) ofthe 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. 
The petitioner holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from the Stevens Institute of Technology. 
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. 
Page 3 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the tenn "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, IOlst Cong., 1st Sess., II (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 that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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. Id. at 217. Next, the petitioner 
must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Id. 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. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the 
petitioner must establish that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. Id. 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. We include the tenn 
"prospective" 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. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, the corrosion and 
dissolution of tungsten, and that the proposed benefits of his work, an improved understanding and 
reduction of risks from this metal, would be national in scope. It remains, then, to detennine 
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 
Page 4 
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. Id. 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 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. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he is a senior member of the American Institute of Chemical 
Engineers (AIChE) and a member of the American Chemical Society. While the letter from AIChE 
indicates that senior membership is "the first step toward qualifying for the esteemed grade of AIChE 
Fellow," the petitioner did not submit evidence of the requirements for senior membership or evidence 
that he is a fellow. As noted by the director, professional memberships are one type of evidence that a 
petitioner can submit to establish exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(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. Id. at 222. 
The petitioner also from the Center for 
Environmental Systems, Stevens Institute of Technology. The petitioner was a student at the Stevens 
Institute of Technology at the time. This certificate does not demonstrate the petitioner's influence 
beyond that institute and, as student recognition, does not distinguish the petitioner from members of 
his field who have completed their education. In addition, recognition issued at the time a paper is 
presented may demonstrate its potential significance, but cannot demonstrate its ultimate impact once 
disseminated in the field. Moreover, as with memberships, formal recognition from peers is one type 
of evidence that a petitioner can submit to establish exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
Because exceptional ability, by itself, does not justifY a waiver of the alien employment certification 
requirement, arguments hinging on formal recognition, while relevant, are not dispositive to the matter 
at hand. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 222. 
The petitioner submitted an email 
Environment. _ addressed the email to 
Technology and inquired whether or "someone your to r"V11"'" 
a manuscript for the journal. __ one of the petitioner's Ph.D. dissertation advisors and the 
petitioner's current supervisor, forwarded the email to the petitioner. In two separate emails, • 
thanks the petitioner for completing the review. It is significant tha_ initially contacted_ 
••• regarding the review. Thus, the review request is not evidence that • was previously 
aware of the petitioner or his work. Moreover, _ indicated he would accept a review from 
Page 5 
"someone" in department, revealing that the review required only knowledge in the field 
rather than demonstrated influence in the field. Thus, the petitioner's participation in the widespread 
review process inherent to peer-reviewed scientific journals is not persuasive evidence of his influence 
in the field. 
The petitioner initially submitted evidence that he had authored the book ••••••••• IIII!I • 
•••••••••••••••• The record reveals that VDM_ 
published this book. The record contains no evidence that this company is a publishing 
company that selects books for publication through peer-review and pays authors an advance for the 
publication rights rather than simply offering publishing services for authors of academic dissertations. 
The record contains no evidence of the sales of this book. 
The petitioner also initially submitted evidence that he had authored two articles and 
article published in Science of the Total Environment. In response to the 
director's request for additional evidence and on appeal, the petitioner submitted additional articles 
published after the date of filing. The petitioner must establish his eligibility as of that date. See 
8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'!. Comm'r. 1971). Thus, 
we cannot consider this evidence. Prior to the date of filing, the petitioner also presented his work at 
five conferences, including presenting two papers at one conference. While the petitioner's 
publications and presentations prior to the date of filing demonstrate that the petitioner's work is 
original and has been disseminated in the field, at issue is the influence of this work upon 
dissemination. 
The petitioner submitted a report titled 
The Institute for Environment and Health at the 
prepared the report. The report initially summarizes "reports and papers referenced by 
As part of this section, the report summarizes one of the petitioner's conference presentations, 
concluding that the petitioner's "preliminary" results "have suggested the presence of non­
stoichometric tungsten oxides as possible intennediates in the process." (Emphasis added.) 
petiti,on(~r also submitted a British unclassified report 
The report cites one of the petitioner's articles as a "further qualitative study" that 
"has confinned the occurrence of galvanic corrosion in tungsten alloy and identified that the rate of 
corrosion of the binder phase was linked to both the quantity and type of metal elements within that 
phase." 
In addition, the record contains a "Response" to the petitioner's 2006 Comments. In this "response," 
asserts that critics basing their concerns on the petitioner's tests do "not change our 
conclusions about the toxic risks presented by that level of tungsten-bronze shot in the environment." 
In another article reiterated his response that the petitioner's work did not demonstrate the 
toxicity of tungsten in amounts prescribed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife criteria to the general 
Page 6 
environment. Thus, regardless of whether the petitioner's concerns are legitimate, 
references to the petitioner's work do not demonstrate the petitioner's influence 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted a letter characterizes the petitioner's 
publication record as "a modest research output over the past 4 years."_ then concludes that 
the petitioner's research "will be very useful to researchers working on the fate of tungsten and tungsten 
compounds in diverse environments such as firing ranges and battle grounds, or other sites where 
tungsten compounds may predominate." rovides no examples of how independent 
researchers are already applying the petitioner's research. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted an article "' __ 
(including one posted on the website of Families Against Cancer & Toxics. These articles are about the 
history of the U.S. military's attempt to develop less environmentally harmful bullets. Both articles 
note that the Stevens Institute of Technology concluded that the tungsten bullets could also contaminate 
soil. The first article, published in June 2004 and titled references the 
petitioner's Ph.D. advisor, study at the Stevens Institute of Technology 
and a second study at the same institute. The petitioner did not present his own work on Tungsten until 
October 2004. As such, it is not clear that these articles referencing work at the Steven Institute of 
Technology are the petitioner's work. We note that the' articles cite 
a 2004 article 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence the petitioner submitted additional citations 
that postdate the filing of the petition, including another article questioning the 
conclusive nature of the petitioner's findings. We will not consider this evidence as being able to 
establish the petitioner's influence and, thus, eligibility, as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. All of the case law on this issue focuses 
on the policy of preventing petitioners from securing a priority date in the hope that they will 
subsequently be able to demonstrate eligibility. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 
(Reg'l. Comm'r. 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; see also Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 175-76 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the 
proposition that we cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a 
petition. ") Consistent with these decisions, a petitioner cannot secure a priority date in the hope that 
his recently published research will subsequently prove influential. Ultimately, in order to be 
meritorious in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval as of 
the date it was filed. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). 
On appeal, the petitioner submits Department of Defense memoranda dated 2005, 2006 and 2007 
referencing studies about tungsten at Department of Defense laboratories. The peltltl'Dnt~r 
Page 7 
Radiobiology Research Institute crediting the petitioner and his with important research on 
tungsten. While_ has cited the petitioner's not present his own work 
internally until July 2007 and did not publish it until 2008, after the 2005 and 2006 memoranda. As 
such, the record does not establish that the petitioner's work has impacted Department of Defense 
policy. 
The remaining evidence consists of letters. states that the petitioner "perfonned 
level research work on the environmental behavior of tungsten and tungsten heavy alloys." _ 
confinns that the petitioner's work "has been of relevance" to the U.S. military. More 
•••••• states that the petitioner "uncovered the basic mechanisms involved in 
the potential environmental release of tungsten and other heavy metals from tungsten heavy alloys 
currently in use by the US military." In addition, according petitioner "has 
developed analytical techniques for characterizing corrosion products of tungsten munitions and is 
currently working on . to tungsten speciation in environmental samples and correlate 
this with toxicity." does not suggest that the petitioner's techniques are being 
adopted at independent laboratories or have otherwise influenced the field. 
asserts that, beginning in 2003, the petitioner perfonned his doctoral and ~ 
research at the Stevens Institute of Technology's Center for Environmental Systems (CES)._ 
further asserts that the petitioner "has been a pivotal contributor" to CES' studies on tungsten, which 
the Department of Defense has funded since 2001. a explains that the petitioner's "technical 
background in chemical and environmental engineering and his expertise in various spectroscopic 
techniques proved to be essential to grasp all the details and intricacies of the subject." Simple 
exposure to advanced technology constitutes, essentially, occupational training which can be articulated 
on an application for an alien employment certification. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. Special or 
unusual knowledge or training, while perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. employer, does not 
inherently meet the national interest threshold. Id. 
_ concludes that the petitioner has "perfonned high quality research on the corrosion and 
metal release mechanisms affecting tungsten composites and in remedial technologies for the removal 
of tungsten from contaminated soils and water." It can be argued, however, that most research, in 
order to receive funding, must present some benefit to the general pool of scientific knowledge. It 
does not follow that every researcher contributing to the general pool of scientific knowledge 
inherently serves the national interest to an extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
Finally, _ asserts that the petitioner's recognition in the field is apparent from the 
publication of technical papers in highly regarded journals and his dissertation as a monograph. 
More significant than the dissemination of the petitioner's work is the influence of that work once 
disseminated in the field. Moreover, as discussed above, the record contains no evidence that, once 
published, the petitioner's dissertation has sold well. We reiterate that the record does not establish 
whether the publisher conducts peer review of the books it publishes or whether it is more akin to a 
vanity publisher. 
Page 8 
a professor at the Stevens Institute of ~~l()\() 
worked on a preliminary project partially conducted in 
provides similar infonnation to that discussed above and states that the petitioner "has the used the 
results of his scientific research to develop environmental remediation plans for the United States Army 
at several of its pennanent bases in the United States. The record contains no military remediation 
plans credited to the petitioner or letters from high level officials at the Department of Defense 
confinning that they actually implemented the petitioner's remediation plans. 
professor at the University of New Haven, confinns that he has 
. confinns that the petitioner developed 
"remediation options," he does not suggest that the U.S. Department of Defense implemented the 
petitioner's remediation plans. 
In a letter postdating the filing of the petition, 
2 at the Polytechnic Institute of N.e.w ••• 
petitioner is an adjunct professor at NYU-Poly. asserts that the courses the petitioner teaches 
are highly specialized and difficult to staff. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are 
available in the United States, however, is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. 
Jd. at 221. 
at NYU-Poly, asserts 
that the petitioner's work "has significantly improved our of the environmental 
processes involved in the release, speciation and subsequent effects of tungsten from tungsten heavy 
alloys in munitions" and has "developed remedial technologies for the removal of munitions 
components from contaminated soils and water." _ asserts generally that the petitioner's 
work has "contributed to the US military's efforts to develop and use more environmentally friendly 
ammunitions" but does not provide examples of how the Department of Defense has applied the 
petitioner's work._ explains that the petitioner has developed analytical techniques and is 
working on other techniques, but provides no examples of independent laboratories using his 
techniques. _concludes that the petitioner's "research output is of the highest quality with 
broad impacts and an international reputation having been featured and cited in various national and 
international journals and other media." As discussed above, however, the minimal citations of the 
petitioner's work are not indicative of an influence in the field. Moreover, this assertion is not 
consistent wit~letter in which he characterizes the petitioner's pUblication record as "a 
modest research output over the past 4 years." 
The petitioner did submit more independent letters. 
Sylvania, asserts that he is familiar with the petitioner's research because 
a scientist at Osram 
studies on the 
leaching behavior of tungsten "have close relationship with" the petitioner's research. 
not explain how he has applied or utilized the petitioner's research. 
does 
As stated asserts that the petitioner "and his colleagues" conducted "a great deal of 
the important demonstrating that tungsten annnunition is not less toxic than lead annnunition. 
USeIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1 the only reference who works 
for the Department of Defense, provides no examples of how the petitioner's work is already being 
used by the Department of Defense or any other independent agency or institution. Instead, he states 
that the petitioner's research "will playa pivotal role in the elucidation" of the problem of health issues 
potentially caused by high levels of environmental tungsten. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a letter from the Massachusetts Military Reservation 
Environmental Officer, who asserts that he and other professionals on the University of Massachusetts 
Scientific Advisory Board selected the petitioner's abstract for an international conference "because of 
its contribution to the understanding of tungsten chemistry."~ continues: 
[The petitioner's] presentation at the conference was on studies of the speciation of 
tungsten in environmental samples. The focus was on laser-desorption ionization and 
how it showed promising results in the qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of 
tungsten species in environmental samples. His work in this highly specialized field has 
already significantly improved our ability to better understand the environmental aspects 
of tungsten on military ranges across the U.S. 
The petitioner submitted the minutes of a July 21, 2004 Scientific Advisory Council meeting during 
whic~cited "a study completed in 2003 by the Armed Forces Radiobiological Research 
Institute indicated serious .. from tungsten alloy, where tungsten alloy pellets 
embedded in rates caused tumors. then lists the Stevens Institute of Technology as one of 
three institutions that is pursuing research on tungsten. notes research that tungsten is 
soluble in water and could potentially migrate. The petitioner, however, did not publish any research 
prior to October 2004 when he gave his first presentation. Thus, it does not appear to have been the 
petitioner's work that inspired_ to pursue the safety of tungsten. 
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 af 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." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter af 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 
af Caran Internatianal, 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. 
I 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 10 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS 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 primarily contain bare assertions of the significance of the petitioner's 
work without providing specific examples of how his innovations have influenced the field. Merely 
repeating the legal standards does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.2 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. 
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. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for 
graduation, publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
It does not follow that every researcher who obtains a Ph.D. or is working with a goverrunent grant 
inherently serves the national interest to an extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
The record does not establish that the petitioner's work has influenced the field to a degree that 
would outweigh the inherent national interest in the alien employment certification process. 
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 alien employment certification will be in 
the national interest ofthe 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. 
Z Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conc1usory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at IS. 
Page 11 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.