dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Geology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
pUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
JUl 2 9 ZDl1 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigralion Services 
Administralive Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FlLE:-.... 
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. § 11S3(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(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, 
ilOWntL--r Perry Rhew 
1" Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
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. § 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences. At the time he filed 
the petition on his own behalf, the petitioner was a senior geologist for ••••••••••• 
_ii' 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 
qualifies for the classification sought, 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel and several witness letters. 
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 for the underlying immigrant classification. The 
sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer 
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 
I The AAO notes that USCIS records show a Form 1-140 
petitioo on the alien's behalf on or about May . writing. the petition is pending. According [0 the 
information available to the AAO, that employer seeks the same immigrant classification for the alien that he seeks for 
himself in the present proceeding, but the new petition evidently does not include an application for a national interest waiver. 
Page 3 
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). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (lMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29,1991), states: 
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" 
Irequired 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 oj New York State Dept. oj Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 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. 
The AAO also notes 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 given 
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. 
In an introductory statement, counsel stated: 
IThe petitioner's] research and work is in the field of geology engineering, where he has 
excelled specifically in applications of petroleum reservoir characterization in mature 
production areas and complex regions. Reservoir characterization involves constructing 
a model that simulates the flow of fluids within the particular reservoir. ... 
Page 4 
lThe petitioner] is highly skilled in reservoir characterization due to his expertise in both 
geology and geophysics. This combination is rare among petroleum geologists, and I the 
petitioner's] specialized skills enable him to characterize oil and gas resources more 
effectively than other geologist engineers in the field .... 
lThe petitioner's] affiliation with , one of the largest integrated oil and 
gas companies in the world, places him in a unique position to promote and implement 
new technologies and methods to revitalize mature wells and locate new sources of oil 
and gas .... His presence is vital to their well revitalization projects and exploration for 
new sources of hydrocarbons .... 
IThe petitioner's] past experience and success serves as an inspiration to geologists and 
geophysicists who are involved in reservoir characterization and optimization. He is 
considered a pioneer of the development and application of 3D seismic structural and 
sequence stratigraphic modeling. Additionally, he is considered a pioneer in the 
integration of geoscience disciplines .... 
Based on his successes _ requested [the petitioner's] presence in the U.S. to 
characterize reservoirs in complex U.S. sedimentary basins, a task only a top expert 
would be able to do. The fact that the company hand-selected [the petitioner I after an 
international search speaks to the level of his expertise and achievements .... 
Experts in the petroleum field confirm that the labor certification process would require 
an unworkable job description and the process would adversely affect the U.S. national 
interest. 
(Citations omitted.) Background materials establish the intrinsic merit and national scope of the 
petitioner's work. The petitioner also submitted materials relating to professional conferences where he 
presented his work. These materials show that the petitioner is active in his field, but cannot 
intrinsically establish the significance of the petitioner's work relative to that of other qualified workers 
in the same field. To lend context to these materials, the petitioner submitted letters from five cunent or 
former co-workers. 
•••••••• now a reservoir engineer manager at Houston. 
Texas, stated: 
I have known [the petitioner] for almost 16 years in a professional capacity. We first 
met in we both were working in •••••••••••• 
••• lii, the Venezuelan national oil company .... 
lThe petitioner] proved to be an invaluable asset for team performance. His skills in 
structural and stratigraphic modelling were the key factor in improving production in 
mature reservoirs ... where he developed and applied a sequence stratigraphic concept 
to propose new infill drilling wells, which after drilled not only increased oil production 
Page 5 
but doubled reserves volumes. This increase in production was unprecedented in the 
Maracaibo region, and the stratigraphic models utilized by [the petitioner) are one of the 
key reasons the area continues to produce. 
[ The petitioner] ... proposed new wells in areas of the reservoir which we thought were 
already depleted, completely transforming the understanding of the Lake Maracaibo 
region. Thanks to these new wells the reservoir production was increased and new 
reserve volumes were added. These results were so significant that sequence 
stratigraphy was included as a mandatory discipline in all reservoir characterization 
studies in the world's 2nd largest oil and gas company .... [The petitioner] was 
one of the pioneers in the integration of geosciences disciplines within In 
Venezuela .... 
[The petitioner's1 ability to integrate geological and geophysical data into the 
hydrocarbon reservoir exploitation process will definitely increase the chances of new 
discoveries and better mature field practices to diminish dependency on foreign oil and 
gas sources . 
•••••• , who described himself as a "Senior Geophysical Advisor" but identified no current 
employer, worked with the petitioner at beginning in 1986. _ asserted that the 
petitioner "was a pioneer in applying the sequence stratigraphic technology in the Maracaibo Lake 
Basin, replacing a~roach that "often resulted in expensive drilling operations with only 
marginal results." _ asserted that the petitioner's work "produced an incalculable economic 
impact in the Venezuelan oil reserves: thousands, if not millions of new oil barrels reserves were added 
to the portfolio of the Venezuelan oil industry." _claimed that "very few professionals used 
the sequence stratigraphy approach to characterize reservoirs" before the petitioner published a paper on 
the subject, but now, "in part as a result of the publication, the use of sequence stratigraphy techni[ qlues 
has become an industry standard." 
now a senior reservoir engineer at __ stated: 
U.S. sedimentary basins are among the most complex in the word [sic) due to a mixing 
of tectonic regimens and very particular sedimentological environments. Only the 
highest level and most experienced geologists are able to delineate and efficiently 
characterize reservoirs in these basins. Consequently,. searched internationally for 
outstanding geologists who would be able to perfonn these duties. One of the few that 
met all requirements was r the petitioner 1. 
The record contains no documentary evidence of _ claimed international search for job candidates. 
the only _ employee to state how .came to find and employ the petitioner, previously 
worked with the petitioner at beginning in 1998. 
Another fonner _ employee now technical manager at 
who has "known [the petitioner] for II years." _ states: 
Page 6 
[The petitioner's] work has been acclaimed for its quality and discussion of the cutting 
edge technical innovations utilized for reservoir characterization .... [The petitioner] 
was part of a team of siiiicialists that . selected for drafting a manual of the best 
practices to elaborate a ThIS model contmues to be used as a gUIde wlthm 
-[The petitioner ] led the initial effort of activities 
in Trinidad and Tobago as a Lead Geologist. ... 
IB)y analyzing geological and geophysical data, he determined that different types of 
hydrocarbon deposits can be identified in the same sand package through well-log 
response and the use of seismic attributes. This response could cause different behavior 
on the fluid content because of lateral sedimentary changes. The team obtained a better 
reservoir characterization using sequence stratigraphy, balanced structural sections, 
seismic attributes and core, production and petrophysical data. This led to better reserve 
estimations and possible new prospective areas to locate oil and gas deposits. The final 
technical advice to the National Trinitarian Oil Company, based on [the petitioner's) 
assessment was to: drill three (3) new horizontal wells, drill three (3) highly Deviates 
wells and drill two (2) new side track opportunities. This has added almost 3000 barrels 
of oil per day to current field production. The outcome of this project opened the doors 
to in Trinidad and Tobago by virtue of its technical quality in which [the 
petitioner) had an outstanding and decisive contribution .... 
It is my opinion that [the petitioner's] expertise in reservoir characterization and seismic 
Interpretation will substantially benefit the oil and gas industry as a whole, but 
particularly in the U.S., due to its critical petroleum shortages. Oil production is 
declining in the U.S. and energy independence is an issue of national interest. 
Accordingly, it will substantially benefit the U.S. national interest to allow [the 
petitioner) to bypass the lengthy labor certification process, in order to immediute[ly] 
address energy shortages in the U.S. through his work as a petroleum geologist. 
The only initial witness not identified as a current or fonner employee is a 
petroleum engineer with _ Venezuela and, since 2005, a ''Technical Manager in a 
new joint venture between. and ' __ "worked with [the petitioner during] two 
periods." Mr. stated that the petitioner's "specialized education in seismic interpretation and 
his ability to integrate petrophysics, geophysics, sedimentology and reservoir engineering enable him to 
serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than others with the same qualifications .... 
His career could be summarized as simply brilliant." 
The petitioner did not submit first-hand documentary evidence to establish that his work has 
increased yields to a greater degree than the work of other qualified professionals in his field, or to 
show the extent to which the petitioner's efforts have influenced the broader field of petroleum 
engineering. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
Page 7 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of Calit()rnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972». 
On February 23, 2010, the director issued a request for evidence, stating that the petitioner had not 
shown that his work has "been responsible for any changes in the thinking or approach of similarly 
employed personnel in [the] field." The director acknowledged references to published work by the 
petitioner, but stated that the petitioner had not established the influence of those publications, for 
example through independent citation. The director also stated that letters from independent witnesses 
carried more weight than letters from the petitioner's own collaborators. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a printout from Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com), 
indicating that two of the petitioner's papers (one from 1995, one from 1998) had two citations each. 
The petitioner did not establish that four published citations over the course of 15 years demonstrate 
unusual influence in his field. The petitioner submitted copies of two articles, each citing two of the 
petitioner's papers, thus accounting for the four citations. The first author of both citing articles is 
1iI ••• IIi. (sometimes listed as was also the 
petitioner's co-author on one of the two cited papers. The petitioner did not establish any published 
independent citation of his work. 
The petitioner also submitted an excerpt from a master's thesis from a student at Texas A&M 
University in 2002, which included a 2001 paper by the petitioner in its bibliography. 
The petitioner submitted ten more witness letters. Despite the director's advice that independent 
witness letters have more value in establishing the breadth of the petitioner's influence, every new letter 
is from a witness who had worked with the petitioner either at_ or at Four of the letters are 
from witnesses who had previously supplied letters with the initial filing of the petition . 
••• asserted that the petitioner's "skills enable him to create precise second-to-none reservoir 
models." He also stated: "Because of [the petitioner's] ability to integrate diverse geoscience 
disciplines in his reservoir characterizations, he has increased the efficiency of drilling operations." 
_stated: 
It is extremely difficult to challenge and overturn decades worth of technical and 
scientific methodologies that are commonly accepted. Nonetheless, after [the 
petitioner's J adept implementation of sequence Stratigraphic technology in the area, 
geoscience professionals began to rely on [the petitioner's] findings and teaching by 
appl ying the technology in other areas of 
The impact of the sequence stratigraphic technology on the daily oil production was an 
outstanding increase, of up to 50%, in the ... Additionally, 
when working on other international projects in countries such as Argentina, Colombia, 
and Ecuador, I found that geologists were not only aware of [the petitioner's] approach 
Page 8 
on the ••••••••• but also they were using the same technology in their 
oilfields. 
asserted that the petitioner's "ability to provide training and mentorship to geosciences 
professionals is well known and recognized internationally," and that the petitioner "has altered the way 
that Oil Companies operate in Venezuela, Mexico, and the USA [and] also in Trinidad and Tobago." 
The last two quoted letters illustrate a pattern in the record. The petitioner claims an international 
reputation and influence, but submits nothing to support this claim except for letters from witnesses 
who have worked with him for years, or at least worked for the same employer as him. 
stated that the petitioner "led the way to instilling new methodology in sequence 
stratigraphy," and that the petitioner's "publications ... have been used as a reference in many reservoir 
characterization studies," but the record contains no examples. Once again, the letter provides an 
assertion of influence without actual evidence thereof. 
Four of the six new witnesses worked with the when he was at now 
director of reservoir solutions for stated: "I met [the petitioner I in in the year 
2000 when 1 was the Latin America Director for Over the next 5 years 1 
would have contact with [the petitioner] 5 to 10 days per month. At the time 1 was supplying 
geophysical data for " stated that his collaborations with the petitioner on three 
projects "resulted in about 50,000 barrels per day of increased production." 
Also at , as a senior geophysical who worked at_ 
(a subsidiary) at the same time as the petitioner. that the petitioner's "ability to 
integrate various disciplines in his reservoir characterization studies makes [the petitioner] a valuable 
asset for projects in structurally complex basins." Mr._ stated: 
Because of his oUltst<Jlnding eX[leriem:e 
was selected by 
of a Team in charge 
);(;U'lU);llO"l disl:ipiines, he 
as a part 
jeo,log;y which, 
includes all the activities than [sic] a Geologist has to carry out in order to 
accurate static model of a reservoir. This manual was incorporated into the 
best practices and it is still in use. 
a consultant who recently retired from Louisiana State University, described 
his "professional interaction with beginning in 1988," when he and the petitioner both 
worked stated that the s publications "improv[ ed] 
also stated: 
Based on his outstanding professional skills in both geology and geophysics ... , [the 
petitioner] was selected from an elite group of senior geosciences personnel within 
••• to put together the "Handbook for Geologic and Geophysical Integrated Static 
Models" that combined stratigraphic, structural, seismic and sedimentology studies. The 
standards developed under his leadership are currently used by geoscientists as 
Page 9 
guidelines for best practices in •••• at one time the second largest govemment­
owned Oil Corporation in the world. 
There are instructive similarities between the two letters quotcd above. The wording is not identical. 
but the tone is very similar, with both witnesses asserting that corporate leadership selected the 
petitioner for a writing task based on his "outstanding ... skills:' Both letters, and others in the record, 
also show idiosyncrasies such as the arbitrary capitalization of words and phrases like _ 
; "and _' These similarities suggest common origin of the two letters . 
•••••• now a senior exploration geophysicist at 
worked with the petitioner at Regarding one project at 
"The integrated reservoir model allowed for the identification of additional prospective zones. 70% of 
the accumulated production of the field comes from four wells which are associated with the reservoir 
model (detailed sand map) developed by" the petitioner. _ claims: "Much of[the petitioner's] 
work has been used as a reference by new petroleum geologists, as well as experienced ones." 
The remaining two new witnesses work for ••• 1111! •••• 
engineer, stated: "we used [the petitioner's] case studies as master 
lead senior reservoir 
examples for several Applied 
Technical Workshops" "in various programs sponsored by •••••••••••••••• 
:IIIIII:IIIIIIlIIIIclaimed to have studied the petitioner's "'publications in detail" while studying for his doctorate. 
_stated: 
As a result of his innovative contributions to the field of reservoir characterization, [the 
petitioner J beeame part of a distinguished elite at _ where he is currently a Lead 
Geologist, serving as part of dedicated to the 
development of Midland, basins. [The 
petitioner's] preeminence in integrating geology and geophysics disciplines makes him 
one of few petroleum geologists qualified to conduct reservoir characterizations in these 
challenging and structurally complex arcas. 
a senior reservoir engineer at. stated: 
I am only acquainted with [the petitioner] throu~s publications and through 
presentations and comments on his work within _While I do not know [the 
petitioner I personally, I am aware of his singular ability to precisely characterize oil and 
gas reservoirs. Through his publications, presentations, and tangible project results, [the 
petitioner J has clearly demonstrated preeminence in the areas of structural, stratigraphic, 
sedimentological and seismic interpretation, and in particular (and of keen interest to 
me) in reservoir characterization .... 
It is rare to find geologists capable of developing geological models that take into 
account the critical requirements and limitations of the Reservoir Engineer's tools 
without multiple model-build iterations and detailed feedback from the Reservoir 
Engineers. 
Page 10 
Many witnesses provide technical details and figures without any objective means to compare the 
petitioner's accomplishments with those of others in his field. It would appear that improving the yield 
of an oil well is a basic rationale for employing a petroleum engineer, and therefore the petitioner's 
ability to do so is not self-evident proof of his superiority in his profession. The record lacks objective 
context for many of the witnesses' key assertions and claims. An example of this is the oft-repeated 
claim that the petitioner's publications are widely influential, despite the near-total lack of evidence that 
others unconnected to the petitioner have ever cited those publications. 
Many witnesses also asserted that there is a significant shortage of qualified professionals in the 
petitioner's field. The assertion of a labor shortage should be tested through the labor certification 
process. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an issue 
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 
22 I&N Dec. 220-221. Given that the labor certification process was designed to address the issue of 
worker shortages, a shortage of qualified workers is an argument for obtaining rather than waiving a 
labor certification. [d. at 215. 
The director denied the petition on April 8, 2010. The director acknowledged the intrinsic merit and 
national scope of the petitioner's occupation, but found that the available evidence did not demonstrate 
the petitioner's impact or influence in his field. 
confirming that the beneficiary 
The director, however, never 
questioned that the presentations took place. The letters do not indicate that the petitioner's 
presentations stood out among others at the same conferences, nor do the letters in any way hint at the 
international reputation to which several witnesses have referred. 
The petitioner submits four more letters on appeal, three of which are from prior witnesses. The sole 
assessor of the general management office 
affiliate. _tates that the petitioner "was 
and continues to be widely known for his preeminence in geological and geophysical fields, particularly 
with regard to his expertise in integrated reservoir characterization." __ states that the manual 
to which prior witnesses have referred "is a reference used regularly to improve the performance of 
_geoscience professionals, and [the petitioner's] contributions have been responsible for the 
successful training of countless geoscience professionals." 
states that "it is rare for individuals in industry to have a voluminous quantity of 
pUblications," and therefore "the number of citations to [the petitioner's1 work in other publications is 
not necessarily probative of its importance." This may well be true (although the record contains no 
statistical evidence to support the claim), but if so, then the petitioner must provide alternative evidence 
that is as persuasive and objective as citations would be. Witnesses assert that the petitioner's published 
work is highly influential, and that many others rely on that work, but without some objective measure, 
these assertions are merely unsupported claims. 
Page II 
•••••• , in his third letter on the petitioner's behalf, states that the petitioner's "reservoir models 
were the key to the discovery of 559 new well locations, tremendously increasing _ portfolio and 
U.S. gas reserves." These are still more unsupported assertions. If evidence exists to confirm this 
claim, the petitioner has not provided it. 
In an appellate brief, counsel notes that the director quoted only four of the witness letters, and 
concludes that "only the four letters ... were reviewed, and the remaining evidence was disregarded." 
The director did not state or imply that the quoted letters represented the totality of the evidence. The 
quotations amounted to a representative sampling rather than an attempt at a comprehensive catalog of 
the evidence ofrecord. 
Counsel protests that the director denied the petition despite "substantiating commentary regarding the 
pioneering nature of [the petitioner's] work and the fact that significant changes were made within 
.... ... and the Venezuelan oil and gas industry as a whole, based on [the petitioner's] work." 
Here, counsel confuses matters by referring to witness assertions as "fact," when in fact they are claims 
from witnesses selected by the petitioner. USCIS is under no obligation to regard witness claims as 
undisputed or proven facts. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and the AAO has considered them above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. [d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as the AAO has done above, evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. US CIS 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 Sofjici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The letters in the record represent the perspectives of the petitioner's co-workers and colleagues. 
The director specifically instructed the petitioner to submit more independent perspectives on his 
work, but the petitioner responded with still more letters from current or former 
-The petitioner initially relied mostly on letters from colleagues and co-workers, and after the director 
specifically requested independent evidence, the petitioner responded with even more letters from 
colleagues and co-workers. Such statements cannot, by brute volume, compensate for the absence of 
the types of evidence that the director had requested. If the petitioner's methods are in use throughout 
the industry, as some witnesses have asserted, there ought to be some kind of evidence to that effect. If 
no such evidence exists, then it is not clear how the petitioner's witnesses can reliably know the extent 
of the petitioner's influence. 
Page 12 
By way of s "successful implementation of sequence 
stratigraphy techniques in the radically altered the way in which reservoir 
characterizations were conducted in Venezuela" (emphasis in original), yet this seismic shift in industry 
practice appears to have gone entirely unrecorded and unreported until the petitioner asked his fonner 
co-workers to write about it. 
The director did not, and the AAO does not, make any finding that the witnesses' claims are false. 
Rather, the petitioner has not shown the witnesses claims to be true. This is not an accusation of 
falsity, but a procedural finding that the petitioner has not met his burden of proof. The petitioner 
cannot remedy this deficiency by submitting still more letters, although the petitioner has repeatedly 
chosen that route. 
Counsel protests that the director relied on "criteria and requirements not based on relevant legal 
authority." The statute and regulations are virtually silent as to how a petitioner can establish 
eligibility for the waiver. The only precedent decision to deal directly with the waiver, Malter of" 
New York State Dept. of" Transportation, which calls for "a past history of demonstrable achievement 
with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. . . . In all cases the petitioner must 
demonstrate specific prior achievements which establish the alien's ability to benefit the national 
interest." Id. at 219 n.6. Other case law, such as Matter of Caron International (cited above), limits 
the evidentiary weight of witness letters with regard to factual claims for which objective evidence 
ought to exist. Nevertheless, the bulk of counsel's appellate brief consists of references to the 
witness letters, as though the letters themselves were presumptive proof of the claims therein. 
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, or every alien of exceptional ability in the arts, 
sciences or business, 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 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, 
S U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.