dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionof personalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE:g $j $ 2M OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMemberoftheProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
DegreeoranAlienof ExceptionalAbility PursuanttoSection203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documents
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquiry thatyoumighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe law was inappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotionto reconsideror amotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a fee of $630. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat any motion must be filed
within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
DuML
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.users.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition.ThematterisnowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.TheAAO will
dismisstheappeal.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationpursuantto section203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct
(theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asa memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree.The
petitionerhasworkedas a vice presidentof since2006. The
petitionerassertsthat an exemptionfrom the requirementof a job offer, and thus of an alien
employmentcertification,is in thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.Thedirectorfoundthatthe
petitionerqualifiesfor classificationasa memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree,but
thatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatanexemptionfromtherequirementof ajob offerwouldbein
thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.
Onappeal,thepetitionersubmitsabrief fromcounselandwitnessstatements.
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart:
(2) Aliens Who Are Membersof the ProfessionsHoldingAdvancedDegreesor Aliens of
ExceptionalAbility.--
(A) In General.-- Visasshallbe madeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho are
membersof the professionsholding advanceddegreesor their equivalentor who
becauseof their exceptionalability in thesciences,arts,or business,will substantially
benefitprospectivelythenationaleconomy,culturalor educationalinterests,or welfare
of theUnitedStates,andwhoseservicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or business
aresoughtby anemployerin theUnitedStates.
(B)Waiverof JobOffer-
(i) . . . theAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorneyGeneraldeemsit to be in
thenationalinterest,waivetherequirementsof subparagraph(A) thatanalien's
servicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or businessbesoughtby anemployer
in theUnitedStates.
Thedirectordid not disputethatthepetitionerqualifiesasa memberof theprofessionsholdingan
advanceddegree.Thesoleissuein contentionis whetherthepetitionerhasestablishedthata waiverof
thejob offerrequirement,andthusanalienemploymentcertification,is in thenationalinterest.
Neitherthe statutenor the pertinentregulationsdefinethe term "nationalinterest." Additionally,
Congressdid not providea specificdefinitionof "in the nationalinterest." The Committeeon the
Judiciarymerelynotedin itsreporttotheSenatethatthecommitteehad"focusedonnationalinterestby
increasingthenumberandproportionof visasfor immigrantswho wouldbenefittheUnitedStates
economicallyandotherwise.. . ." S.Rep.No.55,101stCong.,1stSess.,11(1989).
Page3
Supplementaryinformationto regulationsimplementingthe ImmigrationAct of 1990(IMMACT),
publishedat56Fed.Reg.60897,60900(November29,1991),states:
The Service[now U.S. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)]believesit
appropriateto leavetheapplicationof thistestasflexibleaspossible,althoughclearly
an alien seekingto meet the [national interest] standardmust make a showing
significantly above that necessaryto prove the "prospectivenational benefit"
[requiredof aliensseekingto qualifyas"exceptional."]Theburdenwill restwith the
alien to establishthat exemptionfrom, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the
nationalinterest.Eachcaseis to bejudgedon its ownmerits.
Matter of New YorkStateDept.of Transportation,22 I&N Dec.215(Comm'r. 1998),hassetforth
severalfactorswhichmustbeconsideredwhenevaluatingarequestfor anationalinterestwaiver. First,
it mustbeshownthatthealienseeksemploymentin anareaof substantialintrinsicmerit. Next,it must
beshownthattheproposedbenefitwill benationalin scope.Finally,thepetitionerseekingthewaiver
mustestablishthatthealienwill servethenationalinterestto a substantiallygreaterdegreethanwould
anavailableU.S.workerhavingthesameminimumqualifications.
It mustbenotedthat,whilethenationalinterestwaiverhingesonprospectivenationalbenefit,it clearly
mustbe establishedthatthe alien'spastrecordjustifiesprojectionsof futurebenefitto the national
interest.Thepetitioner'ssubjectiveassurancethatthealienwill, in thefuture,servethenationalinterest
cannotsufficeto establishprospectivenationalbenefit.Theinclusionof theterm"prospective"is used
hereto requirefuturecontributionsby thealien,ratherthanto facilitatetheentryof analienwith no
demonstrableprior achievements,andwhosebenefitto the nationalinterestwould thusbe entirely
speculative.
TheAAO alsonotesthattheregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(2)defines"exceptionalability" as"a
degreeof expertisesignificantlyabovethatordinarilyencountered"in a givenareaof endeavor.By
statute, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/alien employment
certificationrequirement;they are not exemptby virtue of their exceptionalability. Therefore,
whethera givenalienseeksclassificationasan alienof exceptionalability, or asa memberof the
professionsholdinganadvanceddegree,thataliencannotqualifyfor a waiverjust by demonstrating
adegreeof expertisesignificantlyabovethatordinarilyencounteredin hisor herfield of expertise.
The petitioner filed the Form I-140 petition on his own behalf on August 21, 2009. In an
accompanyingstatement,counselstated:"Illiquidity is a constantthreat to our banking system.
. . . In this bleakeconomicenvironment,[thepetitioner]singlehandedlycontinuesto retainforeign
investorconfidencein orderto maintaintheinflow of hundredsof millions of dollars to the U.S.
economy"(counsel'semphasis).
Counselarguedat lengthto establishthe intrinsicmerit andnationalscopeof internationalprivate
banking,throughwhich the petitionerseeksto attract"much-neededforeign capital andinvestment
Page4
from ultra high-net-worthand high-net-worthindividuals." Counselcontended:"Ultra-high-net-
worth Latin Americaninvestorssingleout [thepetitioner]. . . with theknowledgeandconfidence
thathehasanestablishedhistoryof protectingandmanagingtheirwealth,"therebyattractingmuch-
neededcapitalto theUnitedStatesfinancialmarket.
To supporttheseclaims,counselquotedatlengthfrom severalwitnesslettersin therecord. General
economyandfinancefor the
stated:
[Thepetitioner]is well knownwithin the investorcommunitythroughoutBrazil and
Latin America,andhis extraordinaryability in structuringfinancialproductsattracts
multi-million dollarinvestmentsto theUnitedStates.. . .
[Thepetitioner]playsa vital role as
a noted and premier financial institution, wherehe has facilitated secure,
continuousforeigninvestmentandgenerat[ed]portfoliosworthhundredsof millions
of dollars. [The petitioner] has attracted,and continuesto attract,hundredsof
millions of dollars in investmentfrom his elite clientele,while ensuringthat all
documentationandtransactionsadhereto U.S.federalsecurityrequirements.. . .
[The petitioner]is an individual of extraordinarytalentwho securelyensuresthese
vital transactions.I havebeeninformedby top executivesfro
of that [the petitioner]managesover 100premierrelationshipsandhas
attractedapproximately40 new relationshipsbecauseof the reputationhe enjoys
amongBrazilianinvestors.
executivedirectorof BrazilianExecutiv
[The petitioner] is amonga handful of individuals who has risen to the top of the
financeindustry. I believeit is [thepetitioner's]reputationthathasenabledhim to
riseto his currentlevelof esteemwithin thefinanceindustryandthroughoutinvestor
circles.
[The petitioner's] uniqueapproachto providing proactivesolutionsto clients and
devisingwealthmanagementstrategiesarethe key factorsthat sethim apartfrom
otherprofessionalsin his field. It is well knownwithin theindustrythatotherprivate
bankershaveemulatedhis practicesandtechniques.Within theinvestorcommunity,
heis theexpertrelieduponto fosterclientrelationships,whichtranslatesto attracting
hundredsof millionsof dollarsof assetsfor theU.S.market.
Moreover,[thepetitioner's]specialtyliesin attractingforeigninvestorsfrom someof
the most strategicmarketsthroughoutBrazil. He is one of the rare few
Page5
representativeswho hasdevelopedthesemarkets,deemedtrustworthyby the elite
groups he attracts. During one of the world's worst economicclimates, [the
petitioner]continuesto attractandmanagehundredsof millions of dollars. This is
astoundingconsideringthatfinancialinstitutionsareclamoringto stoptheenormous
lossof clientswhoarepullingtheirmoneyoutof thehandsof theirfinancialadvisors.
The record indicatesthat worked at rom 1991to 1995,
overlappingwith thepetitioner'stenureatthatsamebankfrom 1993to 1998.
'an investorandmajor shareholder0 1
stated:
I support[thepetitioner]becauseof his unmatchedandwell knownreputationwithin
thefield. . . .
As Vice Presidentfor a
[the petitioner] specializesin global portfolio coordination. With contacts
throughoutLatin America,andespeciallyBrazil, [the petitioner]hasbeenableto
attractclientswho investhundredsof millions of dollarsin theU.S.marketsbecause
of his tremendoustrack recordof success.. . . Wereit not for him, manyof these
clientsmightnotinvestwith aU.S.basedbank.
vice presidentand chief operatingofficer of
stated:
[Thepetitioner]hasbeena pivotalforcefor bringinghundredsof millions of dollars
in investmentsto theUnitedStates.. . . [T]heseinvestmentshaveanationwideimpact
as they are investedin treasuriesand in stocks,therebybringing capital to U.S.
businesses.. . .
As thenewspapersaroundtheworldhavereported,thereappearsto beno shortageof
availableworkersin this field in theUnited Statesbecauseof the layoffs that have
takenplace;however,thereare very few with [the petitioner's] accomplishments.
His uniqueabilitiescontinueto surpasseveryone.. . .
[The petitioner's]skills in attractinginvestmentfrom Latin Americafor the United
Statesmarketsareemulatedin his institutionfor developingclient relationshipsand
client-basebuilding. I too turn to him for guidancein building formidableclient
relationshipsand attractingclientele,particularlyfrom Brazil, which is a targeted
regionfor attractingincominginvestment.His networkof clientshasgrownbecause
[he] is consistentlyrecommendedby theseclientsto otherinvestors.His reputation
precedeshim in theseinvestmentcircles. Again,in thefield, this is themechanism
by whichassetsaresourced.
Page6
waspreviouslyanexecutiveat Irom 1992
to 2006. ThepetitionerwasavicepresidentatMward theendof thatsameperiod.
Theopinionsof expertsin thefield arenotwithoutweightandtheAAO hasconsideredthemabove.
USCISmay, in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony.
SeeMatter of CaronInternational,19I&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r.1988). However,USCISis
ultimately responsiblefor makingthe final determinationregardingan alien's eligibility for the
benefitsought.Id. Thesubmissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthepetitionis notpresumptive
evidenceof eligibility; USCISmay,astheAAO hasdoneabove,evaluatethecontentof thoseletters
asto whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at 795. USCISmayevengive lessweight
to an opinion that is not corroborated,in accord with other information or is in any way
questionable.Id. at 795;seealsoMatterof Soffici,22 I&N Dec.158,165(Comm'r.1998)(citing
Matterof TreasureCraftof California,14I&N Dec.190(Regl.Comm'r.1972)).
Thelettersconsideredaboveprimarily containbareassertionsof widespreadrecognitionandvague
claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific
examplesof how those contributionshave influencedthe field. Witness assertionsthat the
petitioner'sreputationis commonknowledgecannotanddo not havethesameweightasobjective,
documentaryevidence. The letters,individually andcollectively,comprisea setof vagueclaims
that unnamedclientsmay pull hundredsof millions of dollarsout of the United Statesfinancial
marketwithoutthepetitioner'scontinuedinvolvement.
The directordeniedthe petition on October28, 2009. In the decision,the directorstatedthat the
issuewasnot theintrinsicmeritor nationalscopeof thepetitioner'soccupation,butthesignificance
of thisparticularpetitioner'srolewithin thefinancialindustry.
Onappeal,counselassertsthatthepetitioner's"duty of confidentialityto his clients"limits thetypes
of evidenceavailablefor submission. Counselarguesthat the petitioner"submittedtestimonial
lettersby executiveshighly placedin the field who attestedto the fact thathis track recordis not
ordinarilyfoundin thefield . . . andhehasinfluencedtheway otherswithin thefield attemptto
attract their own clientele." Even within the boundariesimposedby client confidentiality,
supportingevidenceought to exist to supportthe petitioner's principal claims. For instance,
aggregatefigures,which identify no clientsor specificaccounts,could showthat the petitioner's
arrival at a given bankcoincidedwith a significantincreasein assetshandledby that bank. The
petitionersubmittedno suchconcreteevidence,relying insteadsolely on the claimsof witnesses
whomthepetitionerhimselfhasselected.
This patterncontinueson appeal. Ratherthan submit any concreteevidenceof his impact on
internationalbanking,thepetitionerreliesentirelyon witnessstatements.In his own affidavit, the
petitionerasserts"despitetheturbulencewithin our markets,I havemaintainedmy clienteleandin
fact continueto attractclientsfrom Brazil particularly."
Page7
In anewaffidavit essentiallyrepeatsassertionsfromhisearlierletter,
professoremeritusat Portland(Oregon) discussedthe
available evidence and concludedthat the petitioner "will serve the national interest to a
substantially greater degree tha[n] an available worker having the same minimum level
qualifications." Mstated that he basedthis conclusionon threewitnessletters,counsel's
introductorybrief, andan analysisof thebeneficiary'seducationalcredentials. stated:"I
am in no positionto authenticateanyof thesedocuments.I amforming my professionalopinion
basedontheassumptionthatthedocumentsareaccurate." claimednopersonalknowledge
of the petitioner'sreputationin internationalbanking,despite prior claim
that"[i]t is well knownwithin theindustrythatotherprivatebankershaveemulatedhis practicesand
techniques." letteramountsto a discussionof previouslysubmittedevidence,andadds
nothingnewof substanceto therecord.
Counselclaims,on appeal,thatthealienemploymentcertificationprocesswouldnot be appropriate
becausea prospectiveemployercannotspecifythat it requires"[t]he expertiseneededto combat
currenteconomicproblemsandto aid U.S. financialinstitutions." The petitionerstatesthat "it is
impossibleto advertise,through the labor certification process,for the experience,established
relationshipsand reputationthat I possess." As of the writing of this decision,the questionof
whetherthe petitionercouldobtainpermanentimmigrationbenefitsthroughthe standardjob offer
requirementsis no longerhypothetical.
The recordshowsthat . seekingto employthealien asits senior
executivevicepresident,appliedfor alienemploymentcertificationonthealien'sbehalfonAugust23,
2010.TheDepartmentof LaborapprovedthatapplicationonJanuary5,2011.Theintendingemployer
filed its own petitionon the alien'sbehalfon January27, 2011,seekingto classifythe alien asa
memberof the professionsholding an advanceddegree. The directorapprovedthat petition on
February22, 2011. Thus,the entireprocess,from filing the applicationfor alien employment
certificationto approvalof thepetition,tookjust undersix months. Thefairly rapidprocessingand
outcomeof thenewpetitionprovethatthealien'spositionwasreadilyamenableto alienemployment
certification. Thepetitionerfiled a FormI-485adjustmentapplicationon March24, 2011,whichis
currentlypending.
Accordingto the mostrecentDepartmentof StateVisa Bulletin, visa numbersare currentin the
petitioner'sclassificationandfor thepetitioner'scountryof origin) With nobacklogin visanumbers,
thereis no advantageto pursuinga2009prioritydateinsteadof a2011prioritydate.Any suchchange
wouldneitherexpediteprocessingof thepetitioner'sadjustmentapplication,norimprovethechancesof
itsapproval.
Giventheapprovalof alienemploymentcertification,anda newpetition,on thepetitioner'sbehalf,
atthispointthepetitionerseeksanexemptionfromarequirementthathehasalreadymet. Between
Page8
the approvalof a petition with alien employmentcertification,and the absenceof documentary
evidenceto supportthepetitioner'sclaims,thepetitionerhasnotshownthatawaiverof thejob offer
requirementwouldbein thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.
As is clearfrom a plain readingof the statute,it wasnot the intentof Congressthat everyperson
qualifiedto engagein aprofessionin theUnitedStatesshouldbeexemptfromtherequirementof ajob
offer basedon nationalinterest.Likewise,it doesnot appearto havebeentheintentof Congressto
grantnationalinterestwaiversonthebasisof theoverallimportanceof a givenprofession,ratherthan
on themeritsof the individualalien. On thebasisof the evidencesubmitted,thepetitionerhasnot
establishedthatawaiverof therequirementof anapprovedalienemploymentcertificationwill bein the
nationalinterestof theUnitedStates.
The burdenof proof in theseproceedingsrestssolelywith the petitioner. Section291 of the Act,
8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.