dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Foreign Affairs

identieing data deleted"- 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
imrasMo of personal privac) 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, D.C. 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
IN RE: 
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 further 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. $ 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). 
V 
5 ~ohn F Grissom, Acting Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter 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. 9 1153@)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner asserts that an exemption fi-om 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 qualifies for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 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. 
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 director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offa requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
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. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 10 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1 990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
Page 3 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] 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 fiom, 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. 9 204.5(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 offedlabor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a gven 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. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on August 18, 2006. On Form 1-140, under "Basic 
information about the proposed employment," the petitioner listed her "Job Title" as "Counselor of the 
Bolivian Embassy in the United States" and indicated that tlus was not a permanent position. 
In a personal statement dated July 29,2006, the petitioner identified herself as "until recently Economic 
Counselor at the Embassy of Bolivia in Washington DC." On her curriculum vitae, the petitioner 
indicated that she left her embassy position in May 2006. Nevertheless, on Form ETA-750B, Statement 
of Qualifications of Alien, signed by the petitioner and dated August 16, 2006, the petitioner stated that 
she worked at the Bolivian Embassy fkom November 2004 to "Present." 
The petitioner's curriculum vitae also lists the following positions, among others: 
Oct. 
Sept. 
May 
Mar 
In her accompanying statement, the petitioner described the duties of her various positions and stated 
that Bolivia's newly-elected government was reinstituting discredited policies that "are eroding the 
democratic process and the rule of law while promoting racial odium and corruption. Bolivia's current 
administration neglects the important role of academic research as [a] source of policy proposals if its 
outcome contradicts the governmental discourse." While she did not state as much directly, the 
petitioner seemed to imply that she is unable to work effectively under the Bolivian government's new 
policies and that therefore she must seek other employment if she is to continue to have an impact. The 
petitioner stated: 
I am convinced that my professional background could help in designing poverty 
alleviation programs and effective cooperation projects. Setting up productive projects 
for small and medium entrepreneurs in poor and rural areas, will diminish the influence 
of threatening left oriented ideologies, and above all, will pull the Bolivian society away 
from the illegal circuit of drugs, corruption and armed conflict. 
The petitioner did not explain why the work described above is best accomplished in the United States 
rather than in Bolivia. 
In an introductory statement, counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] is among the most gifted, industrious and earnest scholars in the area of 
foreign affairs, specializing in the area of poverty reduction and bilateral relations 
between Bolivia and the United States. . . . 
[The petitioner's] high level background - her Bolivian ancestry, her education and 
career in Mexico and the United States, together puts her in a unique position where she 
has been able to directly contribute to the United States interest in significant ways, 
politically and economically. She has been intensively involved in the field of 
Page 5 
economics, poverty reduction and foreign relations. This is clear from her achievements 
in the diplomatic ranks in Bolivia to her most recent appointment in 2004 as Counselor 
to the Bolivian Embassy to the United States, one of the highest diplomatic assignments 
for the country. Her abilities and professional skills as an economic policy analyst and 
in charge of the relations with the United States Congress are highly in demand at the 
time being. The results of her work have already helped in the strengthening of ties 
between the United States and South America. [The petitioner] has already established 
relations with different think tanks and academic centers, she participated . . . in 
numerous conferences [and] international meetings, and has served as the official 
government representative on numerous occasions. . . . 
Having a knowledgeable diplomat and economist, like [the petitioner], is going to help 
maintain solid ties between Bolivia and the United States. 
Counsel devoted considerable space to a discussion of the petitioner's past activities in jobs she no 
longer holds, but counsel did not specify what, exactly, the petitioner intends to do in the United States. 
Counsel stated: "There is no higher calling that to attempt to help the bilateral relations . . . and reduce 
poverty," but did not explain how the petitioner intends to reach these goals. Expertise in economics 
and international relations does not, by itself, serve the national interest; an alien does not merit a waiver 
simply by possessing such a trait. Rather, it is how such expertise is applied that determines the benefit 
to the United States. The petition must show that she has realistic opportunities to reduce poverty, 
improve international relations, and otherwise serve the national interest of the United States. 
Several witness letters accompanied the petition. All of the initial witnesses have known the petitioner 
for several years, and attest to her impact in positions she no longer holds. , now 
Director of the U.S. Agency for ~ntern&onal Development (USAID) in Bogota, Colombia, formerly 
held the same position in Bolivia. Ms. stated: 
I have known [the petitioner] since her academic assignment with the prestigious 
Masters Program of the Bolivian Catholic University in 2000 in La Paz, Bolivia. 
Thanks to the collaboration we received &om [the petitioner], USAID was able to 
demonstrate the impact of the USAID-supported training programs to Bolivia's private 
and public sectors. Her diligence and professionalism were invaluable for this important 
partnershp between USAID and a high level private university. 
Later, when she worked with the Unit for Economic Policy Analysis (UDAPE), a well- 
recognized and high powered think tank under the auspices of the Ministry of Finance in 
Bolivia, [the petitioner] was charged with relations with donor countries and foreign 
cooperation agencies. During this period, her relationship with USAID was 
tremendously helpful in our development assistance work in Bolivia. Her extraordinary 
political sensitivity and managerial skills were key in strengthening this bilateral 
relationship. . . . 
Page 6 
[The petitioner] is a person of the highest character and strong intelligence. Her recent 
assignment as Economic Counselor at the Bolivian Embassy in Washington helped 
poise Bolivia as candidate-country for the Millennium Challenge Account; the 
Presidential Initiative. The role she played in this on-going technical and diplomatic 
exchange was critical in solidifying the bilateral relationship. 
[The petitioner's] unique knowledge of the economic and political situation of Bolivia, 
which is very important for the democratic stability in the region, makes her a valuable 
resource to the scores of public officials working in that area. 
Center at Florida Atlantic Universi 
 formerly served on the faculty of the Bolivian Catholic University 
alongside the petitioner. Prof. & stated: 
Some of her academic research on poverty and governance has provided fresh 
challenges to other colleagues. Her work has been quoted several times in important 
academic publications. Her study [of] citizen perceptions is one of the first of its kind 
and has been a basic step for other investigations related to economic public policy in 
Bolivia. . . . 
Based on the quality of her work, I invited [the petitioner] to join a group of outstanding 
Bolivian intellectuals and to write a chapter on the labor market in a book about the 
challenges in Bolivia. [The petitioner's] paper was excellent for ha logical inferences 
and innovative policy recommendations in particular. . . . 
[The petitioner's] knowledge of the complex economic context in the current political 
situation in Bolivia and the entire Andean region could help delineate a better 
comprehensive strategy to deal with the region. 
- President of the Bolivian-American Chamber of Commerce, Inc., stated: "we 
benefited &om her presentations on important and timely issues. . . . I can venture to say that her 
training in international economics and foreign affairs could greatly help to improve U.S. trade with 
Bolivia and other training partners in South America." 
The letters discussed above concern the petitioner's work in capacities that she no longer performs, and 
say little about her intended future work other than to express confidence that the petitioner's expertise 
equips her well for work relating to Bolivian-U.S. relations. Other letters express interest in retaining 
the petitioner's services as a consultant with the World Bank Institute; as a columnist with Los Tiempos 
USA, "a Spanish newspaper serving the Hispanic community in the Washington DC metropolitan area"; 
and in an unspecified capacity with the law firm of Winston & Strawn LLP. The petitioner did not 
specify which of these very diverse offers, if any, she would be inclined to explore. 
Page 7 
The petitioner submitted documentation of what counsel called "nationally or internationally recognized 
awards." Of the six documents so characterized, the first two are certificates attesting to her 
appointment to government positions; the third is a certificate expressing "deep appreciation for [her] 
valued services to the World Bank"; the next two documents relate to academic scholarships that helped 
to fund her graduate studies; and the last document is a "certificate of completion" for the petitioner's 
"participation in the 1999-2000 Women's International Leadership Program." 
 None of these 
documents appears to be an "award" at all, let alone "nationally or internationally recognized" as such. 
In a similar vein, counsel makes much of the petitioner's membership in the Stoddert Elementary 
Parent-Teacher Association. The AAO does not share counsel's perception of what satisfies the 
evidentiary threshold for eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
The petitioner submitted what appears to be a printout from a search engine, listing citations of the 
petitioner's published work, news articles and reports mentioning the petitioner's name. The petitioner 
provided no objective context for the significance of this list. Many of the sites quoted in the printout 
are in Spanish, with no translation as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(3), and therefore we cannot even 
tell the context of those references to the petitioner. Of the English-language references, one appears to 
be a list of embassy personnel, and others appear to report alumni gatherings. 
The petitioner submits copies of her published work (university reports and newspaper columns) as well 
as book chapters, reports, and other documents, in English and other languages, containing references to 
the petitioner's work. These materials establish citation of the petitioner's work, but they do not 
establish a frame of reference to show that the petitioner's work is cited more frequently than that of 
others in her field. Most of the citations derive from a 2002 article, of which the petitioner was the third 
of three named authors. 
Much of the remaining evidence in the initial submission establishes that the petitioner held the posts 
that she claimed to have held. The petitioner's professional resume, while impressive, is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility for the waiver. 
On October 29, 2007, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE). In the RFE, the director noted 
that the petitioner had left the Bolivian embassy in May 2006, and stated that the petitioner had not 
provided sufficient evidence or information about her intended activities in the United States. The 
director also requested evidence that the petitioner has "had a degree of influence on [her] field that 
distinguishes [her] from other economists with comparable academic/professional qualifications." The 
director also informed the petitioner that "[floreign language documents which have not been translated 
will not be considered as evidence." 
In response, the petitioner submitted several new exhibits, along with an explanatory letter from 
counsel. Nowhere in this seven-page letter did counsel directly address the fairly basic question of 
what, exactly, the petitioner intends to do in the United States. Counsel argued repeatedly that the 
petitioner is an expert in various diplomatic and economic areas, but being an expert is not an 
occupation in and of itself The question remains as to how the petitioner intends to apply that 
expertise. 
Page 8 
The closest the petitioner and counsel came to addressing the question of the petitioner's intended future 
work was to submit a copy of a November 16, 2007 letter from Director of the 
Americas Program at the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia. The complete text of that letter reads as 
follows: 
I want to thank you for your interest in the Associate Director position with the 
Americas Program of The Carter Center in Atlanta. During your interview, the search 
committee was impressed with your credentials and diplomatic experience, as well as 
your knowledge of both Latin American and U.S. political processes and cultures. 
These are important qualifications for the work of The Carter Center. 
We have a strong group of finalists for the position and hope to have a decision soon. 1 
will keep you informed. 
The above letter does not shed further light on the petitioner's intended activities in the United States. 
Instead, it further muddies the waters surrounding this issue. Asked to explain her submission of three 
widely divergent job offers, the petitioner submitted evidence showing that, after the petition's filing 
date, she pursued a fourth potential job in a different occupation than the previous three offers. This 
evidence shows that, some six months aRer leaving her embassy position, the petitioner had yet to 
decide upon a specific occupation, let alone secure employment in that occupation. Furthermore, we 
note that the letter does not indicate that the Carter Center sought out or recruited the petitioner based on 
her claimed reputation. Rather, the text of the letter indicates that the petitioner approached the Carter 
Center and expressed "interest in the Associate Director position." The tone of the letter is 
complimentary but noncommittal, and the record does not show that the Carter Center actually selected 
the petitioner for the position. 
Another letter from the Carter Center, this one dated January 10, 2007 and signed by- 
Associate Executive Director of the Americas Program, thanked the petitioner for her "work as an 
election observer in Nicaragua." The record does not establish the qualifications necessary to work for 
the Carter Center as an election observer, or the procedure by which the Carter Center selects those 
observers. Devoid of context, the letter simply establishes that the petitioner was one of an unspecified 
number of election observers deployed by the Carter Center circa late 2006. 
In a November 13,2007 letter, 
 a member of the Professional Staff of the U.S. House of 
Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, thanked the petitioner "for the information [she] 
provided during our recent conversation about democratic security in Central American countries." 
%le stated "I look forward to continuing our dialogue," the record does not establish the 
extent or sigmficance of the petitioner's input with regard to the committee's activities. Mr. = 
mentioned "criminal gangs from Central America," an issue that received little if any emphasis in the 
petitioner's initial submission. The letter, written after the RFE's issuance, does not indicate when the 
"recent conversation" took place. 
Another activity that the petitioner undertook after filing the petition was two appearances on Foro 
Americana, a weekly ~~&sh-lan~ua~e program on voice of America (VOA) ~eliiision. Two letters 
fiom Producer, essentially identical except for specific dates, state: "Every week, a panel 
of three renowned Latin American journalists join our guests to discuss topics of importance to the 
region." The letters indicate that the petition&- was scheduled to appear 
 20-minute segments on 
September 1 and December 29, 2006. More recently, a mid-July 2007 electronic mail message fi-om 
of InterMedia indicated that the petitioner had "been identified as an excellent potential 
'control listener"' for "our upcoming VOA Bolivian radio programming evaluation," a task in which 
the petitioner would "be providing evaluations of four hours of VOA Spanish to Latin American radio 
programming in Bolivia from 24-27 July 2007." A July 23, 2007 "Consultant Agreement" indicated 
that "INTERMEDIA desires to engage the Consultant to render certain professional services in which 
the consultant purports to have expertise," but the generic wording of the agreement did not further 
discuss this "expertise." 
The evidence described above indicates that VOA has taken some interest in the petitioner, but only for 
short-term endeavors such as interviews and a one-week listening project, described so vaguely that it is 
not even clear whether the petitioner received compensation for that work. (The petitioner provided 
only the first page of the "Consultant Agreement.") 
, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Tremisis Energy Acquisition 
Corporation, New York, New York, stated: 
I first became aware of [the petitioner] and her work as an international journalist and 
economic analyst in Bolivia while I was CEO of Bolivian Power. . . . [The petitioner's] 
economic analyses in local newspapers and international TV network were closely 
watch and greatly appreciated among the broad circle of American investors and 
entrepreneurs considering and working in Bolivia. 
Years later, I frequently encountered and worked with [the petitioner] when she headed 
the economic section of the Bolivian Embassy to the US in Washington. [The 
petitioner] was instrumental in facilitating private sector investment and business 
operation in Bolivia. . . . 
In addition to [the petitioner's] knowledge of the Andean region economy, she possesses 
an extraordinary political knowledge and sensitivity regarding South America in 
general, making her a valuable resource for American investors, international agencies 
and governments with financial and commercial interests in the Western Hemisphere. 
She is an outstanding consultant regarding security, political and economic issues for 
new and prospective investments in Latin American countries. 
(Sic.) s letter, like the other newly submitted exhibits, sheds no light on the nature of the 
petitioner's intended occupation in the United States. The vague implication is that, given the 
petitioner's expertise on economics and policy, she is sure to benefit the United States in some capacity, 
Page 10 
even if the exact nature of that capacity is not yet known. This claim does not establish the petitioner's 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. We acknowledge that the petitioner seeks a waiver fiom the 
job offer requirement, but this does not excuse the petitioner from having to explain, at a minimum, 
what sort of work the petitioner intends to do in the United States. The petitioner may well be an expert 
in certain areas, but expertise is a qualification, not an occupation. 
The director denied the petition on March 10,2008, stating: "the petitioner still does not clearly address 
what she will be doing in the United States." The director observed that many of the prospective 
activities discussed in the petitioner's evidence would take place outside the United States. We agree 
with counsel that activities outside the United States can be of national importance to the United States. 
It is clearly in the national interest to maintain good relations with other nations, and to promote 
prosperity and stability in regions that may otherwise pose a threat to our national security. This, of 
course, does not support a blanket finding that experience in international diplomacy is presumptive 
evidence of eligibility for the waiver. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits background evidence relating to Latin America in general and Bolivia 
in particular. This evidence addresses the intrinsic merit and national scope of diplomacy but does not 
establish that the petitioner stands out in her field to a degree that would warrant the waiver. The 
petitioner also submits additional information about VOA. The AAO does not dispute the importance 
of VOA's overall mission, but it does not follow that an individual who was interviewed on VOA for 
forty minutes has had, or will have, an impact proportional to that of VOA as a whole. To hold 
otherwise would imply that virtually any alien who has appeared on VOA television or radio merits a 
waiver. 
Counsel states that the petitioner's "background and training are extremely important in order to help 
clear the complex moment that the foreign relations are going through right now," and that her 
"knowledge and expertise on the political and economic situation in Bolivia is of particular 
importance." Once again, these are generalities that fail to explain what the petitioner intends to do in 
the United States (and whether realistic opportunities exist for her to engage in such work). 
Counsel states that the petitioner, owing to "her standing in the field," has attracted "the interest of 
various organizations and institutions." Counsel claims that, given this general interest, "[ilt is not 
necessary for her at this time to be specifically employed in a qualifjmg position" (counsel's emphasis). 
There is, however, a difference between the petitioner not being employed at one particular moment in 
time, and the petitioner's being unable to explain how she intends to be employed in the future. It is 
simply not enough to assert that, given the petitioner's background, she is sure to find, eventually, a 
position that will, in some way yet to be determined, serve the national interest. 
Counsel states: "We feel that the Service is unnecessarily focusing on a narrow aspect of this case. . . . 
The bigger picture of [the petition] is the extent to which her past and ongoing work has impacted the 
field." If the petitioner's impact came through positions she once held, but holds no longer, then it is 
not trivial or picayune to expect a clear and persuasive explanation of how exactly the petitioner expects 
to have an impact in the future. 
Page 11 
Two additional letters accompany the appeal. Initial witness 
 prepared a second 
letter on December 6, 2007, for submission in response to the RFE, but the letter was not submitted at 
that time. In this new letter, 
 identifies himself as "the Managing Partner of Newlink 
Research, a private research firm that conducts surveys throughout Latin America and the Caribbean." 
Most of this letter is virtually identical to Prof Garnarra's earlier letter, dated July 10, 2006. The new 
portion of the letter consists of three paragraphs, reading in part: 
[The petitioner's] training and background has become even more relevant and useful to 
US national interests given the profound crisis in Bolivia and the near breakdown of US- 
Venezuelan relations. At ths stage, Bolivia is literally on the brink of disaster and US 
policymakers are in desperate need of sound professional advice on how to deal with 
both countries. . . . 
On the basis of her experience, training, education and overall background, Newlink 
Research hired her to assist with a variety of projects. She is currently assigned to a 
project our firm has with the Mexican government. Over the course of the past two 
years, [the petitioner] has worked on the implementation of the Democratic Security 
Plan in the Democratic Security. This plan was conceived by Newlink and has been 
credited with significantly reducing the crime rate in that country. Newlink was 
fortunate to count on the experience of [the petitioner] during the design phase of the 
project and throughout the several phases of the implementation. 
When considering 
 new claims regarding the petitioner's work with Newlink, it is 
significant to note that the petitioner did not mention Newlink on her curriculum vitae or in her 
introductory statement in which she detailed her work experience. The petitioner also omitted any 
mention of Newlink on Form ETA-750B, which instructed her to "List all jobs held during the last three 
(3) years." likewise did not mention Newlink in his first letter on the petitioner's behalf, 
even though that letter was written July 10, 2006, during "the past two years" that preceded the new 
December 2007 letter. ~lso, description of Newlink appears to be incomplete; it is not 
clear how "a private research firm that conducts surveys" would be responsible for introducing and 
implementing national security initiatives. 
The other new letter submitted on appeal reads, in part: 
between 2002-2005. Currently I am member of the Inter-American Juridical Committee 
of the Organization of the American States and Senior Associate of the Consulting firm 
Newlink Group leading its office in Washington DC for projects related with 
Democracy and bilateral relations of our clients with the United States. 
I know [the petitioner] since her years as international correspondent in Bolivia while I 
was a Vice-Chancellor at the Ministry of Foreign Affgirs in Bolivia. Years after, I had 
Page 12 
the privilege of counting her within my diplomatic staff at the Embassy of Bolivia in 
Washington and during this last year as a colleague with Newlink Group. 
. . . I am convinced that [the petitioner's] understanding of the work and processes of US 
government agencies and international financial institutions are a highly valuable asset 
for the coming relations of the United States with the Andean Region. . . . 
In the first half of the year 2007, [the petitioner's] work with Newlink Group was mainly 
focused [on] democracy in Bolivia and democratic security for Central American 
Countries. Since July of that year she has been working on a Mexico project. 
~ike o does not specify the nature of the petitioner's "work 
with Newlink Group." Amb. Aparicio Otero implies that this work began in 2007, which would 
explain its total omission from the initial filing in 2006. Nevertheless, it is significant that the director, 
in the October 2007 RFE, specifically noted the lack of "information regarding [the petitioner's] actual 
proposed employment." The petitioner's December 2007 response to the RFE contained no mention of 
Newlink whatsoever, although it is now claimed that she had been working at Newlink for most of 
2007. Counsel does not explain why the petitioner withheld the information about Newlink even after 
the director specifically asked about the petitioner's employment after she left the Bolivian Embassy in 
2006. 
The petitioner's latest submission on appeal does not resolve the concerns raised by the director. The 
assertion that the petitioner is an experienced and well-connected expert in Bolivian-U.S. relations 
cannot compensate for the absence of coherent evidence to show what, exactly, the petitioner intends to 
do in the United States, let alone that it is in the national interest for the petitioner do so instead of a 
qualified United States worker. 
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, because eligibility for the underlying classification requires 
prospective benefit to the United States, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to grant 
national interest waivers on the basis of an alien's past accomplishments, when that alien is unable to 
clearly or consistently articulate the nature of his or her intended work in the United States. On the 
basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of an 
approved labor 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. 4 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 a labor certification issued by the 
Department of Labor, appropriate supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.