dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Geophysics

1 
identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac) 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: 
JUL 0 7 201\ 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Cilizcns-hip and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeab Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § I I 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
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 I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~rryRhew 
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 a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a geophysicist. At the time he filed the petition, the petitioner was a 
postdoctoral research associate at the , Los Angeles. 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 
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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement, witness letters, and other exhibits. 
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 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 
Page 3 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United Slates 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, 10ist Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
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 (USerS)] believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearl y 
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."1 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. 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 offer/labor 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. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on June 24, 2009. In an introductory letter, the petitioner 
described his work: 
My current research interest is pore-scale investigation of geological carbon 
sequestration in saline aquifers, which has important applications in reducing carbon 
dioxide (C02) emission and consequently mitigating global warming. 
Page 4 
... Capture and storage of tremendous amounts of C02 is a tempting approach to 
reduce the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Specifically, geological carbon 
sequestration, which is the injection of C02 into geological formations (e.g. coal beds, 
depleted petroleum and gas reservoirs, saline aquifers, and deep-sea sediments) for 
long-term storage, can significantly reduce the atmospheric emission of greenhouse 
gases .... In addition, injecting CO2 into depleted petroleum reservoirs provides 
additional oil production and improved storage security. Therefore, C02 flooding has 
been used as a popular enhanced oil recovery (EOR) mechanism. 
During my Ph.D. research, I obtained a lot of skills and experience in pore-scale 
investigation. These skills and experience are vital for the research of geological 
carbon sequestration .... 
During my past research, I developed a set of innovative and revolutionary 
experimental-numerical approaches for studying colloid transport and deposition, as 
well as transport of heavy metals in groundwater. My ... research experience on 
colloid transport and deposition is useful for the investigation of geological carbon 
sequestration .... 
I am a leading and indispensable researcher in my current project, because of the 
special expertise I possess on high-energy synchrotron-based X-ray microtomography 
and scientific computation. . . . I have independently developed an advanced 
mathematical model simulating the coupled processes at the pore scale, based on the 
X-ray tomographic data. These interdisciplinary skills and qualifications make me 
the ideal scientist for my current research .... 
I have done distinguished research in earth and environmental sciences, which are 
extremely important and valuable in improving the environmental and energy 
situations of the United States. Specifically, my research has the potential to mitigate 
global warming, by storing excessive C02 in underground geological formations. 
Also, my research advances the predictions of contaminant transport and heavy metal 
distribution in groundwater. ... [The) national interest would be adversely affected if 
a Labor Certification were required for me, because there are no available American 
candidates that meet the minimum requirements for my current position. 
(Emphasis in original.) The argument that the labor certification process would harm the national 
interest "because there are no available American candidates that meet the minimum requirements 
for [his I current position" is not persuasive, because the very purpose of the labor certification 
process is to determine whether or not qualified United States workers are available for a given 
position. 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. (if 
Transportation, 22I&N Dec. 221. The petitioner argued, in effect, that because no qualified 
-Page 5 
workers were available to replace him, it would be against the national interest to confirm that no 
qualified workers were available to replace him. 
Throughout this introductory letter, the petitioner repeatedly stresses the importance of his skills to 
his "current project" and "current research" at USc. The petitioner did not explain why it would be 
in the national interest to grant permanent immigration benefits for him to fill a temporary 
postdoctoral position. The job offer letter in the record described a one-year appointment, expiring 
August 16, 2009, with no guarantee of reappointment, and a "maximum possible term [of] five 
years." The record does not reveal whether or not USC reappointed the petitioner after August 16, 
2009, but USCIS records do show that the petitioner left USC less than six months after he filed the 
present petition, moving to Indiana in late 2009 to accept a position at West 
Lafayette. I 
Six witness letters accompanied the petitioner's initial filing. 
_the petitioner's research a_stated: 
Carbon sequestration (storage) is the isolation of carbon dioxide (C02) from the 
earth's atmosphere. Sequestration can playa significant role in preventing continued 
C0 2 buildup in the atmosphere and is thus a viable option for mitigating global 
warming. Geological sequestration involves storing C02 underground in rock 
formations that can retain large quantities of CO2 for long periods of time. The C02 
would be held in small pore spaces inherent in rocks .... 
[The petitioner] is an outstanding scientist with extraordinary research ability, by 
considering the following: 
I) [The petitioner] has made original scientific contributions. His research on 
colloidal particle transport is actually the first published work that observes and 
simulates the movement and accumulation of micron-scale particles in porous 
media. This accomplishment is prominent. He also developed an X-ray 
microtomography method to quantitatively study sediment mixing and transport 
in real streambeds. In my group, [the petitioner] developed a coupled numerical 
model, which takes into account two-phase flow, dissolution on interface, and 
solute transport. This sophisticated model advances our understanding of the 
complicated pore-scale processes during C02 injection in geological formations. 
2) [The petitioner] has published many outstanding papers and conference 
proceedings, which proves he is a talented and hard-working scientist. His work 
has been cited by others in the field, even though the papers are relatively new. 
3) [The petitioner] has independently judged the work of others in the field for many 
professional journals, indicating that he has been recognized as an expert in earth 
and environmental sciences. 
1 USCIS records show that the petitioner no longer works at Purdue 
who 
Page 6 
4) Because of his original scientific contributions, [the petitioner] has received two 
international awards and two fellowships. The 
he received at 2006 is absolutely competitive and rPr",,,vnf>n 
5) [The scientific 
including 
Engineers. 
The research associate position in my group was opened last spring, and I received 
more than one hundred applications. However, it was not easy to find an ideal 
candidate because we wanted someone who has extensive knowledge in numerical 
simulation and geophysics .... IThe petitioner's I past research on pore-scale 
processes in porous media made him the perfect researcher for my project. Not only 
does he have good qualifications in scientific computation, but also he has a lot of 
experience in high-energy X-ray tomography and digital image processing. These 
skills are critical and necessary to my project. 
Now [the petitioner] is making exciting progress in the project of C02 storage in 
geological formations, and we will publish our up-to-date results very soon. I am 
glad to see that he has been a leading and productive role in this promising project. 
Thus, [the petitioner] is an outstanding scientist in his field, and an indispensable 
asset in my project. If I lose him because of the visa issue, the project will be 
adversely affected. 
__ argument that the petitioner's "skills are critical and necessary to [the] project" at_ 
is now moot, given the petitioner's subsequent relocation to Indiana. The nature of the petitioner's 
contributions will receive due consideration, but the AAO will not find that it is in the national 
interest to grant permanent immigration benefits for a temporary job that the petitioner has already 
left. 
pet.iticme:r's pnmary 
[The petitioner's1 research is focused on developing innovative methods for micro­
scale analysis of the structure of sedimentary materials, and applying those methods 
to assess the evolution of pore structure and pore fluid flow in a variety of 
geophysical contexts. [The petitioner] achieved several notable accomplishments 
through his research. [The petitioner's] first major accomplishment was to develop 
methods for synchrotron-based x-ray difference tomography, and to demonstrate their 
use to observe local-scale patterns of colloid deposition and sediment sorting. [The 
petitioner] not only designed and executed experiments, but also developed his own 
image analysis routines to extract quantitative information from the tomograms .... 
The approach [the petitioner1 developed is quite valuable, as it provides unique 
Page 7 
insight into the reorganization of pore structure that occurs during processes such as 
contaminant remediation, carbon dioxide injection, and oil extraction .... 
Recently, [the petitioner] has also extended this method for analysis of arsenic 
distributions in sediments. This ... will greatly improve evaluation of arsenic efflux 
from contaminated deposits, which will be critical in managing ongoing health risks 
from arsenic .... 
[The petitioner] also engaged in a completely separate effort to use the newly 
available pore-scale data to analyze the coupling between pore fluid flow and the 
evolution of pore structure .... These methods are very fundamental and have wide 
applicability to problems in hydrogeology, sedimentary geology and geochemistry, 
fluvial geomorphology, environmental engineering, and petroleum engineering. 
Specifically, I am certain that the approach [the petitioner] developed to assess 
interaction of fluid flow with the matrix structure of sediments and groundwater 
aquifers will become a standard tool for scientific and engineering assessment of 
these systems .... 
[The petitioner's] accomplishments are widely recognized. He has numerous 
technical publications in the highest-ranked journals .... His productivity in this 
regard is outstanding relative to others with a comparable level of experience in this 
field .... His technical achievements are very well known researchers 
in the field, including~ group at and the 
geomaterials group at __ 
vm'wtv of institutions, but not 
claim in this regard is, therefore, unsubstantiated. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting 
the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffiei, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of'Calij(Jrllia, 141&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
rp.IWP<Plnt a variety of research institutions. 
praised the petitioner's "tremendous 
accomplishments, which have attracted extensive attention in the geophysical community and 
potentially have wider applications for the industry and medical advancements." _stated: 
I would like to point out [the petitioner's] experience in dealing with colloid 
transport. Colloids are small mobile particles in soil water and have the ability to 
absorb and transport contaminants. . . . While there is a substantial group of 
researchers in the US who work on colloid transport, virtually none of these 
researchers is able to deal with colloidal transport at ... the microscopic scale at 
[which the petitioner] has worked. To my knowledge, [the petitioner's] recently 
published work on the effects of colloids on flow at the pore-scale is the first work 
Page 8 
that shows that - contrary to some claims of the experts - colloids can actually be 
studied at this scale. This is a truly tremendous achievement, which will likely lead 
to new development of knowledge and lead to better predictions of colloid behavior 
in U.S. Groundwater resources. 
stated: 
Although I have never collaborated with lthe petitioner], I have noticed his research 
since 2004. At that time he was using high-energy X-ray Micro-tomography to 
observe the internal pore structure of natural sediments .... This unprecedented 
technology is of great interestlJ in both natural and engineered applications. 
Specifically, the experimental approaches and image processing methods [the 
petitioner I developed can provide detailed and accurate data as boundary conditions 
in pore-scale numerical simulation. His research has attracted peer's attention .... 
Additionally, [the petitioner] has successfully combined his experimental data with 
pore-scale lattice Boltzmann simulation. Since 2004 we have been keeping frequent 
email communication because I am an expert in the lattice Boltzmann simulation and 
was able to give him advice on this method. His Ph.D. research is the first reported 
work which combines high-energy X-ray tomography and lattice Boltzmann method 
to accurately study the effects of micron-scale particle on the transport properties of 
natural porous media .... The quantity and quality of his publications are impressive, 
compared to his peers with the same age and experience. 
stated: 
I knew [the petitioner's work when he applied for a post-doctoral experimentalist 
position in the 
Because of his strong and diverse academic record, [the pelluoneI 
candidate. Unfortunately, because I accepted a position 
Irvine in summer 2008, the position was never filled .... The most challenging issue 
in [carbon sequestration] research is the long-term safety and monitoring of stored 
carbon dioxide. Our understanding of these processes will benefit greatly from pore­
scale investigations. [The petitioner] developed a systematic experimental and 
numerical approach for investigating the coupling of pore structure and transport 
processes in porous media. This approach holds great promise in the research of 
carbon dioxide sequestration. 
Specifically, [the petitioner] has achieved the following: a) he developed an approach 
for using high-energy X-ray microtomography to study pore structure evolution due 
to colloid deposition, which can be used to study the modification of pore geometry 
Page 9 
due to injected carbon dioxide; b) he developed a great deal of techniques in digital 
image processing which could be used to process CT images for the boundary 
conditions in numerical models; c) he developed 3D numerical simulation of single­
and multiple-phase fluid flow and solute transport, which is crucial for quantitatively 
studying the coupling of carbon dioxide injection, pore geometry modification, and 
transport properties of the porous medium. 
[The petitioner'sl PhD research dealt with the deposition of small particles in porous 
media, a process, for example, relevant to water filtration. With interest, I have been 
following his research for a couple of years, because one of my former PhD students 
also performed research on this topic under my direction. [The petitioner] has 
performed top-notch research. He pioneered the use of novel techniques in the field 
of water filtration. Specifically, he combined an imaging method for filters based on 
X-ray computed tomography with mesoscopic simulations based on the lattice­
Boltzmann method. In his PhD research, he significantly advanced our understanding 
of particle deposition in porous media. 
The petitioner submits copies of seven articles, six of which saw publication before the petition's 
filing date. The remaining article was still in review at the time. Of the petitioner's six published 
articles, one, in Chinese, dates from 2003. The other five articles are all products of the petitioner's 
doctoral research at is a co-author of all five of these articles. 
The petitioner and also on a book chapter and six conference 
presentations. As of the filing date, therefore, all of the petitioner's published and presented work in 
the English language arose from his work under 
A number of witnesses praised the petitioner's publication record, but the petitioner did not submit 
objective evidence (such as citation data) to show the extent to which other researchers have relied 
on his articles. The petitioner submitted aggregate citation data for the journals that carried his 
articles, thus demonstrating his awareness of the significance of citations, but the petitioner did not 
provide citation information for his articles, relying instead on the overall impact and reputations of 
the journals. 
~ image relating to the petitioner's work appeared on the cover of an issue of _ 
_ Letters. The petitioner's article was one of three named as "Highlights o~ 
Clearly the editors of the journal had a high opinion of the article, but its selection as the cover story 
cannot serve as evidence of the story's subsequent reception by others in the field. 
. .. I· .- the petitioner's from the .3 •••• 
An electronic mail message from the _ indicated that the 
petitioner's presentation was one of 24 selected for an award out of 511 presentations in the 
hydrology section at the 2006 fall meeting, for a selection rate of about 4.7%. In all, the _ 
Page 10 
awarded 77 outstanding student paper awards at that meeting. (There were more winners in the 
hydrology section than in any of the other six sections.) Under the USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), recognition of this kind can contribute, in part, to a finding that the petitioner is 
an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences. As previously explained, aliens of exceptional ability 
are generally subject to the job offer requirement. Therefore, evidence of exceptional ability is not 
presumptively also evidence of eligibility for the national interest waiver. The petitioner has not 
shown that his award from the _ is of a caliber that that stands out even among aliens of 
exceptional ability; its status as a student award (thus disqualifying established and experienced 
researchers) argues otherwise. 
The director denied the petition on August 31, 2009. The director acknowledged the intrinsic merit 
and national scope of the petitioner's research, with its applicability to carbon sequestration and 
other important scientific goals. The director concluded, however, that the petitioner had not 
"established that [his 1 achievements have made a significant impact within the field of civil and 
environmental engineering." 
The petitioner filed his Form I-290B Notice of Appeal from California. Three weeks later, the 
petitioner submitted a supplement to the appeal, including an "updated Curriculum Vitae" that 
continues to indicate that the petitioner resides in _California and works at_ The 
petitioner mailed the supplement, however, from_, Indiana. 
The petitioner states: 
I am a top scientist in my field of endeavor, and my contribution has made a 
significant and influencing impact upon the field .... 
I am the first-author of 4 high-quality papers, and a contributing author in many other 
papers .... This publication record is definitely outstanding for a young scientist. 
The petitioner criticizes the director for stating conclusions "not supported by any explicit data, 
evidences, or criteria," but the petitioner himself provides no "data, evidences, or criteria" to support 
the claim that his "publication record is definitely outstanding for a young scientist." The petitioner 
then quotes from witness letters, both previously submitted and newly presented on appeal. 
The petitioner submits what he describes as a mJodified recommendation letter" 
which basically first letter with new language added at the end. The 
new letter, repeats the assertions that the petitioner "is currently a post-
doctoral research associate in my group" and that the petitioner'S "skills are critical and necessary to 
my project," even though the petitioner had left California by the time he submitted the letter in late 
October. that the petitioner "has risen to the very top of his research area," but 
offers no empirical support for that claim. 
Page II 
that the petitioner's work "brought him national and 
international recognition .... It is undoubted that [the petitioner's] contributions have made a more 
significant impact than most of his peers with similar experience." In terms of describing that 
impact, appears to be less decisive, stating: "As far as I know, the lattice Boltzmann 
method he developed for studying colloid transport has been utilized to investigate CO2 
sequestration at the pore scale." 
calls 
the petitioner's work "impressive compared to his peers. I can say with confidence risen 
to the top in pore-scale research. His remarkable work has received international acclaim, and made 
significant impacts on the field .... Additionally, [the petitioner] has received two world-famous 
awards for his research contributions." The AAO duly notes high opinion of the 
quality of the petitioner's work, but the absence of objective documentary remains a point 
of concern. If the petitioner is truly an acclaimed figure in his field, then it is not clear why the only 
materials mentioning that acclaim are letters that the petitioner solicited to support the petition. _ 
_ does not identify documented instances whereby the petitioner's work has influenced the 
ongoing research of others. Likewise, he does not show that any existing engineering project has put 
the petitioner's research to practical use. He simply asserts "acclaim" and leaves it at that. 
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. Id. 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. USCIS may even give less weight 
to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of Soffiei, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft ~lCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). See also Matter of'V-K-. 24 
I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (B IA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence 
as to "fact"). Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the 
petitioner's burden of proof. 2 
2 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (ED.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990): 
Avyr Associates. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (SD.N.Y.) Similarly, uscrs need not accept 
Page 12 
When considering the credibility ~of the witness letters, examination of claims about the 
petitioner's awards is instructive. _ asserts that the petitioner has won "two world-famous 
awards," while Prof. Saiers refers to "two prestigious international awards." The witnesses do not 
identify the awards, but presumably they refer to the only two awards that the petitioner has 
identified and documented. Those awards are the discussed 
received on 
in 2008. The record contains no information about the 
latter award except to show that the petitioner received it. The record identifies both of these awards 
as student awards, indicating that as late as 2008, authorities in the field of hydrology considered the 
petitioner to be a "student" rather than a fully trained participant in that field. 
The AAO agrees with the director's finding that the evidence made available to the director did not 
warrant the approval of a national interest waiver. The evidence submitted on appeal does not 
indicate that this decision was in error. 
USCIS records show that, appeal, the petitioner 
filed a new Form 1-140 petition (with receipt number on his own behalf. In the 
new petition, the petitioner again sought classification as a member the professions holding an 
advanced degree, with a national interest waiver. The Director, Nebraska Service Center, approved 
that petition on February 9, 2010. The record of proceeding for the approved petition is not before 
the AAO, and the AAO therefore will not discuss the merits ofthat petition. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. Whatever the petitioner may have submitted in support of his later, 
approved petition, the evidence submitted in support of the present petition does not establish 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. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.C. Disl. 1990).