dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Ethnoeconomics And Journalism

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
identifying data deleted to 
 Ofice of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invasion of persoilel privacJ 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
 Services 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: MAY 0 4 2009 
FILE: 
SRC 08 074 50147 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any fiuther inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 4 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Notch& 
0 John F. Grissom 
t" Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability. The petitioner seeks employment as 
an ethnoeconomist and journalist. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a 
job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director 
found that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer 
would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel argues that the director failed to consider relevant evidence, and incorrectly focused 
on the national interest waiver issue rather than on the petitioner's claim of exceptional ability. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
\ 
 (2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -- 
(A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer. 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(4)(ii) requires that a petitioner seeking to apply for the 
exemption must submit Form ETA-750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien, in duplicate. 
Counsel, in an introductory letter, claimed that the petitioner had submitted Form ETA-750B, but the 
record does not contain this required document. The petitioner did submit, in duplicate, Form ETA- 
750A, Application for Alien Employment Certification, signed by counsel. It appears that counsel 
inadvertently prepared the wrong form. Nevertheless, because the record does not contain Form 
ETA-750B the petitioner has not properly applied for the national interest waiver. The director did 
not note this omission in the denial notice. We will, therefore, review the matter on the merits. 
Page 3 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." 5. Rep. No. 55, 101 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] believes it appropriate 
to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien 
seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing significantly 
above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" [required of aliens 
seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the alien to establish 
that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the national interest. Each 
case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Commr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, 
it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must 
be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver 
must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would 
an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest 
cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used 
here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. 
We also note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree 
of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offerllabor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a gwen alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
On her Form 1-140 petition, the petitioner stated that she "Conducts extensive research into potential 
financial oppo'rtunities in the United States for German investors. She then authors articles in German 
Page 4 
periodicals that are distributed to Germans in their home country. She uses both economics and 
journalism to achieve exceptional results." 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner's "duel expertise" (sic) in "ethnoeconomics" and journalism "is not 
amenable to labor certification." Noting that the petitioner has already accumulated experience as a 
journalist in the United States under an I nonirnrnigrant visa, counsel stated: 
How does the labor certification process fit into hring an individual with this 
background and prospective value in the future? It doesn't! 
The recommendations and the sheer number of Certificates, (Press Passes) - 
representing 12 years in this country [of] ethno-economic and journalistic work clearly 
preclude her from any type of labor certification. Nor will any U.S. workers with 
similar qualifications be available and therefore displaced by her. Look at [the 
petitioner] from a labor certification process [sic]. To advertise for her skills, advertising 
here would necessarily have to seek a U.S. citizen, born and raised in Germany so as to 
understand the German mentality. Next that U.S. citizen would have at least 12 years 
experience as a journalist learning from the best about economic and journalist 
techniques. This skill would be required to entice and induce foreign investors to buy 
American. 
Where would the DOL advertise? Here? Germany? There probably are no U.S. 
workers that even have the same minimum qualifications, or experience level. Can there 
by any doubt that this person will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than available U.S. workers, none of whom possess this unique combination of 
talent? This level of knowledge cannot be filled by conventional labor certification 
procedures. 
Counsel cited no evidence to support the claim that "[tlhere probably are no U.S. workers that even 
have the same minimum qualifications, or experience level." We note that a basic purpose of the labor 
certification process is to verify that qualified U.S. workers are unavailable for a given position. If 
counsel is correct that no minimally qualified U.S. workers are available, then this would be a strong 
argument for approving a labor certification. 
With regard to counsel's argument that the petitioner works for a foreign employer, the record contains 
minimal information regarding the corporate structure of the publications for whch the petitioner has 
worked. The locally incorporated United States bureau of a German publisher would have standing to 
apply for a labor certification. Counsel simply claimed that the nature of the petitioner's work makes 
labor certification impossible. Even if this were proven to be the case, the waiver is not available to 
every alien who cannot obtain a labor certification. By statute, the petitioner must demonstrate that the 
waiver would be in the national interest. 
Counsel asserted: 
Page 5 
[The petitioner] is well respected in her work in journalism and economics and [for] her 
unique ability to write articles on various attractions that are designed to give the readers 
a camera like view of what she is describing. Her efforts to attract German tourists and 
investors are borne out by her recommendations. . . . 
Her plan is to continue to author articles for various publications, one of which currently 
is printing her articles. Another German bound magazine is now negotiating with her to 
attract foreign investors to the United States. Because of the lopsided valuation between 
the U.S. Dollar and the Euro, this has become an increasingly luring [sic] place to buy 
property and a source for infusion of billions of Euros for U.S. citizens who are going 
through foreclosures at a record rate. Foreign investors have the funds to buy properties 
at bargain prices and still help Americans in a crumbling housing market. 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Rarnirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). For the above arguments to have any weight, the 
petitioner must submit evidence that permits a meaninghl comparison between the petitioner's 
accomplishments (and their results) and the accomplishments of others engaged in similar work. For 
instance, the petitioner could demonstrate that German investment in certain areas significantly 
increased after the petitioner featured those areas in her articles - and that similar increases did not 
result after others wrote articles about other areas. If press coverage in general causes spikes in investor 
interest, then there is no basis to conclude that the petitioner, in particular, serves the national interest to 
an especially great extent. 
The petitioner submitted no direct, objective documentary evidence of the impact of her past work as a 
journalist. (Copies of the petitioner's articles establish the existence, but not the significance, of those 
articles.) Instead, the petitioner submitted a number of letters from various colleagues. 
President of the European Business Council, Cape Coral, Florida, stated: 
 - 
[The petitioner] is an Economist, Journalist and an Author, a combination necessary for 
publishing articles for our Magazine "Discover Florida" published by the European 
Business Council and distributed through the German Airline LTU and on the East- and 
Westcoast of Florida and in some Parts of Germany. The goal of this Magazine is to 
reach thousands of German investors and bring them to Florida. 
[The petitioner] is both an exceptional author/journalist and economist. She knows 
precisely how to understand the German mind and therefore becomes an invaluable tool 
to address the Germans in order to address immerging [sic] trends in economic activity, 
consumer attitudes and economic confidence levels. 
. . . The beneficial affects [sic] that she provides to literally thousands of Germans in the 
investment community in Germany is beyond calculation. . . . The only way she can 
draw investors here is by visiting different parts of Florida and researching and writing 
about the opportunities. 
, Bureau Chief of the German Newspaper Group (described as "a chain of 8 German 
dailies with a combined circulation of 2.4 million"), Bethesda, Maryland, stated that, in addition to 
serving as the "principal assistant and researcher" for her husband, the Washington and White House 
correspondent for Handelsblatt, the petitioner "conducted interviews and wrote mainly economic stories 
on her own. Then and now I'm impressed by the depth of her knowledge and her abilities as a 
newspaper writer." stated that the petitioner's writing, "mainly about economic affairs 
and US-European relations," was "well received," "by editors (and readers)." 
Sample articles address such subjects as the Harley-Davidson plant in York, Pennsylvania, fine dining 
in Cape May, New Jersey, and an overview of the novels of Zane Grey. While some articles also 
address tourism in Florida, a focus of her waiver claim, the record does not show any overarching 
theme to her past work, or any indication that the petitioner, more than other writers, has had a 
significant effect in encouraging German investment in the United States. 
The director denied the petition on July 14, 2008, stating that the petitioner had not persuasively 
supported counsel's argument that the petitioner's occupation "is not amenable to labor certification." 
The director also quoted Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation at 2 18 and 220-22 1, stating 
that the precedent decision "directly refutes" the argument that a waiver is in order because no other 
qualified worker is likely to be found. The director stated: "the labor certification is precisely the test to 
find out whether [a] qualified U.S. worker can be found, and to allow employment of aliens if no 
available U.S. worker can be found." 
The director found that the petitioner had submitted "no evidence of comparison" between herself and 
others engaged in similar work. The director noted that the petitioner's witness letters consisted largely 
of "general phrases and statements, without concrete examples or evidence to back up" the claims in 
those letters. 
On appeal, counsel states: 
The Director focused his attention on the National Interest Waiver with only fleeting 
references to 8CFR 204.50(4)ii and completely ignored the provisions of 
8CFR(k)(3)(i)(B)(ii)(A)-(F). In fact the only reference is the provision enabling the 
Director to exempt ths matter from labor certification. 
Instead the whole thrust of this denial is squarely centered around the N.Y. Transit Case 
(Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation). That case should be considered in 
tandem with the I.N.A. and the provisions of 8CFR cited above not to the exclusion. 
[Sic.] 
Page 7 
Counsel thus complains that the director addressed the national interest waiver claim, but not the 
exceptional ability claim. Counsel fails to explain why Wher discussion of exceptional ability would 
have changed the ultimate outcome of the petition. A plain reading of section 203@)(2)(B) of the Act 
clearly indicates that aliens of exceptional ability are typically subject to the job offer requirement; the 
aliens must show that their "services in the sciences, arts . . . or business are sought by an employer in 
the United States." While the national interest waiver is tied exclusively to classification under section 
203@)(2) of the Act, the waiver is a separate benefit. Eligiblity for the underlying immigrant 
classification does not automatically qualify an alien for the waiver, nor does it create a presumption of 
eligibility for the waiver. 
The statute and regulations demonstrate that the petitioner must make two separate showings: first, that 
the alien qualifies for classification as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business; 
and second, that it would be in the national interest to waive the job offer requirement. If the petitioner 
fails in either of these two areas, then the petition cannot be approved. The director's finding that the 
petitioner does not qualify for the waiver is, by itself, entirely sufficient to justify a denial of the 
petition. The petition was filed by the petitioner on her own behalf, with no job offer and no approved 
labor certification. Therefore, without a waiver, the petition cannot lawfully be approved, even if the 
petitioner had produced compelling and unimpeachable evidence of exceptional ability. Further below, 
in the interest of thoroughness, the AAO will examine the petitioner's evidence submitted in support of 
her exceptional ability claim. 
The next passage from the appeal begins with a rhetorical question from counsel: "How would a labor 
Certification process find someone like this, namely, a German educated in Germany in economics and 
trained by a well known journalist in Washington DC. She learned by doing the 'grunt work."' 
Counsel has not persuasively shown that the petitioner's work could only be performed by "a German 
educated in Germany in economics and trained by a well known journalist in Washington DC." The 
circumstances under which the petitioner gained her current skills are much less important, for our 
purposes, than what she has done with those skills. The record does not show that what the petitioner 
has done with her skills distinguishes her significantly from other journalists. 
Counsel asserts that, given the current economic crisis, "we must depend upon foreign investments 
to help get our Country some relief." The petitioner, however, has submitted no reliable evidence to 
show that her work has had any appreciable impact on foreign investment. The petitioner has simply 
claimed that her articles will persuade German investors to boost the economy of the United States. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). The 
petitioner has not established any track record of influencing foreign investment in the United States, 
and her personal confidence that her work will one day lead to such investment cannot suffice to 
establish her eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
For the reasons discussed above, the AAO affirms the director's finding that the petitioner has failed to 
establish that she qualifies for a national interest waiver of the job offerllabor certification requirement. 
This finding, independently, is sufficient by itself to warrant dismissal of the appeal and, therefore, the 
AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
As counsel notes on appeal, the director limited the initial decision to the issue of the national 
interest waiver, and did not discuss the question of the petitioner's eligibility for the underlying 
immigrant classification. In the interest of thoroughness and clarity, the AAO will address that issue 
here. 
 The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 
$ 557(b) ("On appeal fiom or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it 
would have in making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see 
also Janka v. US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO's de 
novo authority has been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 
1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
An alien may qualify for the national interest waiver only if that alien qualifies for classification under 
section 203(b)(2) of the Act, either as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2) provides the following pertinent definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If 
a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a 
United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 101(a)(32) of the Act, as 
well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
The petitioner did not claim to qualify for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. In the denial notice, the director indirectly acknowledged as much, stating: "The 
record showed that the beneficiary had less than four years of education in economics and no formal 
education in journalism." Counsel does not contest this finding on appeal, instead asserting that the 
petitioner "is following a familiar track. Abe Lincoln did not go to law school. He learned by doing." 
The petitioner, on her resume, claimed to hold a "Diploma as Master of Business Administration" from 
the Academy of the Rhineland, Cologne, Germany. The petitioner submitted an evaluation report fiom 
the Foundation for International Services. That evaluation does not indicate that the petitioner holds a 
master's degree. Rather, the evaluator indicated that the petitioner "has the equivalent of completion of 
professional training in business from a vocational school in the United States." Taking the petitioner's 
employment experience into account as well (explicitly relying solely on the petitioner's own rksumk as 
evidence of employment), the evaluator concluded that the petitioner "has a background equivalent to 
that of an individual with a bachelor's degree in journalism from a regionally accredited college or 
university in the United States." 
While 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2) permits experience to take the place of a master's degree, there is no 
comparable clause relating to a bachelor's degree. If a given alien does not hold at least a U.S. 
baccalaureate degree (or a foreign degree equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate), then that alien cannot 
qualify for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
The petitioner, through counsel, claimed to qualify for classification as an alien of exceptional 
ability. Congress did not open the classification to every alien who shows exceptional ability in 
every conceivable occupation or discipline. Rather, Congress specifically required exceptional 
ability in the sciences, arts or business. A statute should be construed under the assumption that 
Congress intended it to have purpose and meaningful effect. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. v. Pueblo 
of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237, 249 (1985); Sutton v. United States, 819 F.2d. 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 
1987). The "sciences, arts or business" clause is without purpose or meaningful effect unless that 
clause narrows the range of eligible occupations. Counsel did not specify whether the petitioner's 
occupation falls under the sciences, arts or business. 
Leaving aside the question of whether the petitioner's work falls under the collective rubric of the 
sciences, arts or business, we shall consider counsel's claim that the petitioner meets the regulatory 
requirements for the classification. If she does not meet them, then the question of whether the 
petitioner's work falls within the sciences, arts or business is moot. 
The regulations at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(3)(ii) set forth six criteria, at least three of which an alien must 
meet in order to qualify as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or business. We note 
that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. Therefore, evidence 
submitted to establish exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in 
order to fulfill the criteria below. Qualifications possessed by all or most workers in a given field 
cannot demonstrate "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered." For 
example, every qualified physician has a college degree and a license or certification, but it defies logic 
to claim that every physician therefore shows "exceptional" traits. 
Counsel claimed that the petitioner "meets at least 3 out of the 6 criteria," specifically the following: 
An oficial academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certz@ate, 
or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning 
relating to the area of exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. $204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) 
Page 10 
Counsel stated that the petitioner "has a diploma and licenses relating to her area of exceptional 
ability." Licenses are covered by 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). Also, as noted above, an evaluation 
in the record indicates that the petitioner's degree is "equivalent to completion of professional 
training in business from a vocational school in the United States." This training, in turn, is clearly 
below the level of a bachelor's degree, because the evaluator concluded that only by taking the 
petitioner's experience into account could the petitioner be said to have "a background equivalent to 
that of an individual with a bachelor's degree in journalism." Experience is covered by a separate 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. 4 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), below; 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) is limited to academic 
education. 
As stated previously, the petitioner's academic training has been found to be equivalent to 
"professional training in business from a vocational school." The petitioner admittedly holds no 
degree in journalism. The petitioner has not shown that this level of formal academic training 
demonstrates a degree of expertise significantly above that normally encountered among journalists 
who specialize in economic news. The petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the 
alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or 
she is being sought. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
In terms of letters from current or former employers - the type of evidence required by the above 
regulatory language - the petitioner documented almost 15 years of employment, as follows: 
Title or responsibilities Dates 
Market researcher 
 January 197 1 -September 1974 
Advertising July 1977-January 1980 
Advertising January 1980-December 1984 
Branch leader January 1985-June 1988 
None of the above experience was in the occupation of a journalist or "ethnoeconomist" (a term that 
the petitioner has not fully defined). The regulatory language calls for evidence of "experience in 
the occupation," rather than in the general field or in related occupations. 
Counsel asserted that the petitioner meets this criterion by having served as the "assistant . . . 
researcher and editor" for her now-deceased spouse from 1988 to 2001. The petitioner, however, 
submitted no documentation to support this claim. The petitioner's spouse was a Handelsblatt 
correspondent during the period in question, but the only employment letter submitted from 
Handelsblatt is dated June 30, 1988, and that letter cannot verify employment that took place after 
that date. Photocopied press passes from the 1990s are not evidence of full-time employment. 
Rather, they document the petitioner's involvement in specific short-term events. 
A 2007 letter from , described on its letterhead as a "Companny [sic] for 
Commercialization Association with Legal Capacity," indicates that the petitioner "in 1993 signed a 
safeguarding contract with VG Wort." Counsel stated: "Apparently, this is a blanket copy write [sic] 
for everything she authors." Once again, this is not evidence of full-time employment; copyright 
arrangements would be necessary whether the petitioner was a full-time employee, an occasional 
freelance writer, or a one-time author. Similarly, copies of a small number of sample articles written 
by the petitioner do not establish or imply full-time employment as a journalist. 
The record lacks "letter(s) from current or former employer(s)" to establish that the petitioner has at 
least ten years of full-time experience as an economic journalist. The petitioner has not satisfied this 
criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certzfication for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) 
Counsel mentioned "licenses" in the context of the petitioner's academic degrees. We will discuss them 
here, under the regulation that deals with licenses. Counsel states: 
[The petitioner] possesses numerous press passes that were issued by several countries. 
These are major monetary events as the Internaternational [sic] monetary conferences 
and the G-7 Monetary Conferences held by the financial heads of the major countries in 
the world. 
These "passes" are, indeed, licenses to enter a foreign country to perform specific 
journalistic hctions and for a specified period. These passes are available to journalists 
only working for publishers in their home country. 
We note that, if the petitioner's press passes are, as claimed, "available to journalists only working 
for publishers in their home country," then it follows that the petitioner would be unable to obtain 
press passes for German publishers after making the United States her "home country." 
More significantly, the petitioner has not established that these press passes are indicative of 
exceptional ability in journalism. The director, in denying the petition, observed that the petitioner 
received most of these passes at a time when she herself was not even working as a journalist, but 
rather as her husband's assistant, doing what counsel has called "grunt work." If the petitioner 
received these passes not as a reporter in her own right, but as a reporter's assistant, then it is clear 
that one need not even be a journalist at all to receive such passes. The petitioner has not satisfied 
this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) 
Counsel stated that the petitioner "holds memberships in professional associations open only to 
individuals with special skills." Counsel did not elaborate and the record does not identify any of 
these associations. Therefore, the petitioner has not satisfied this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and signiJicant contributions to the industry 
or field by peers, go~ernmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
8 C.F.R. 8 204.5@)(3)(ii)(F) 
Counsel claimed that "letters of recommendations" (sic) satisfy this criterion. Counsel did not identify 
any "recognition" that the petitioner has received apart from witness letters that we have already 
discussed. The AAO holds that letters of this kind have little weight as evidence of recognition under 
8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). All the other criteria of exceptional ability clearly refer to evidence that 
exists as a natural result of a given alien's training or work in a particular occupation. Letters of 
recommendation, on the other hand, oh do not exist until the alien decides to seek immigration 
benefits, at which time the letters are solicited and written specifically to support that petition. Such 
letters do not carry the same weight as awards or other forms of formal recognition that exist because of 
the alien's achievements and contributions, not because the alien requested their creation to support a 
visa petition. The petitioner has not satisfied this or any other criterion of exceptional ability. 
On appeal, counsel stated: 
The Director has completely ignored the evaluation from the Foundation for 
International Studies (F.I.S.). Petitioner clearly possesses the initial qualifications and 
thus the director would necessarily move on to the provisions of the six tests used to 
gauge exceptional ability. He also ignored the fact that Petitioner met three out of the 
six standards and therefore qualified for the EB-2 Approval. 
The assertion that the "Petitioner met three out of the six standards" is a claim, not a "fact." With 
regard to counsel's claim that the educational evaluation shows that the "Petitioner clearly possesses the 
initial qualifications," it is not clear to what "initial qualifications" counsel refers. Clearly counsel does 
not mean that the evaluation establishes the petitioner's exceptional ability, because that would negate 
the need to "move on to the provisions of the six tests used to gauge exceptional ability" at 8 C.F.R. 
6 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Whatever counsel believes the various requirements and criteria to be, in point of fact the petitioner 
must first establish eligibility for classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Act, and then, in the 
absence of a job offer, the petitioner must separately establish that it is in the national interest to 
waive the job offer requirement. In this proceeding, the petitioner has accomplished neither of these. 
Based on the record of proceeding before the AAO, the petition cannot be approved. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit 
sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has 
not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.