dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Systems

i9vaJiun af personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rrn. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
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 1 53(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. 
%obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont 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. 5 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks 
employment as an information systems consultant, specifically a senior principal consultant at Oracle USA, Inc. 
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. 
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 increasing the number and proportion 
of visas for immigrants who would benefit ;he United States economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 
10 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (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 Citizenship and Immigration Services] believes it appropriate to leave the 
application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the 
[national interest] standard must make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove 
the "prospective national benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualifL as "exceptional."] 
The burden will rest with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job 
offer will be in the national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 2 15 (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. I11 the denial notice, the director focused on the third factor. 
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. 5 204.5(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 qualifL 
for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his 
or her field of expertise. 
In a statement submitted with the initial filing, the petitioner discussed his work and its importance: 
In my six years sojourn in the U.S., I engaged in delivery technology enhanced process 
improvements to public sector agencies, educational institutions and corporations. While 
implementing ERP applications, 1 helped my clients identify shortcomings in their operations 
and defined business processes that improved their performance and enhanced profitability. 
These initiatives helped to improve systems integrity and security. 
The clients 1 have served have greatly advanced their corporate governance structure and 
raised their level of risk management and capabilities to withstand disaster recovery and 
business continuity. Furthermore, the solutions 1 proffered have yielded tremendous 
efficiencies in my clients' Customer Relationship Management. This quantum leap in 
individual organizations adds up to the economic growth of the United States. . . . 
I composed a strategic initiative on how Oracle Corporation can bring more value to 
businesses and public enterprises, which will lead to a phenomenal thrust in the entire U.S. 
economy. . . . [I was] offered . . . employment as Senior Principal Consultant in January 2006. 
I will be responsible for the design, configuration and development of financial applications 
software particularly for the Public Sector agencies and government institutions. . . . 
I am positioned to deliver to Oracle Corporation's clients concepts that encompass business 
activities across planning & budgeting, co~~solidation, analysis and monitoring thereby giving 
organizations' management the ability to execute measure and act upon results. Through the 
technology I will be configuring, organizations would be able to regain control of their 
businesses, increase their credibility and remove barriers throughout the enterprises. 
Furthermore, I will help the client orga~~izations I serve to define and manage risks and 
controls that will enable them to co~nply with the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Acts of 2002 
statutory reporting standards thus preventing the incidences of fraud and business failures. 
The petitioner also asserts that he will benefit the United States through "sports development initiatives for 
youths" (the petitioner is a volunteer youth soccer coach) and "contribution to adult rehabilitation." The 
petitioner also wrote an article containing general financial advice published in One Voice, a periodical 
described as "A Christian Publication" and the content of which suggests local circulation in the Detroit area. 
The petitioner claims no occupational credentials in these areas, which appear to represent the petitioner's 
volunteer activities. The national interest waiver is associated with what the statute defines as an 
en~ployment-based immigrant classification. National interest arguments must relate to the alien's 
employment activities. An alien who is otherwise ineligible for the waiver cannot establish eligibility by 
demonstrating a history of community volunteer activities, or by pledging to engage in such activities in the 
future. The AAO will limit consideration to the petitioner's occupational/professional achievements. 
The petitioner submitted copies of documents showing his academic and professional credentials. A resume 
submitted with the petition indicates that the petitioner's work since 2000 has consisted of a succession of 
contract projects. What follows is the petitioner's description of his current work as of the filing date: 
Requirements gathering, mapping and gap analysis to determine appropriateness of 
Oracle Financial Applications 
Advi[s]e management on the business process variations that would bring about effective 
corporate governance 
Configuration of Financial Application modules - GL, AR, iExpense, EPB, Assets, 
Projects, Supply Chain suites 
Project coordination and reporting 
When the petitioner filed the petition in March 2006, he indicated that he became an employee of Oracle 
Corporation in January 2006. In a later submission, he stated that he joined Oracle in April 2006, after he 
filed the petition. A letter from - Human Resources Representative at Oracle, indicates 
that the petitioner "began employment on May 23, 2006." The petitioner's earlier consulting work involved 
Oracle products. 
Two witness letters accompanied the initial filing. 
 President of Ingeniana Management 
Consultants, stated: 
In the last eighteen months, I have worked closely with [the petitioner] on a project for a 
niajor client. The client owns a large plot of land near a major ~netropolitan center and was 
desirous of commercial development of a portion of it to provide some income to cover the 
costs of running the remaining portion. [The petitioner] developed the parameters for the 
initial market survey that allowed us to analyze several options that would meet the client's 
needs. . . . 
Based upon our analysis, a decision was made by the client to pursue a Fee Fishing business 
as the first commercial enterprise for the property and with identified follow on options for 
the future. [The petitioner] continued to work with Ingeniana as we designed the man made 
lake and the supporting structures for .the business. He also contributed technically to the 
development with money saving ideas. He also contributed to the Business Plan that was 
developed for the project that will be used both with the lenders and as a road map for 
implementation. 
We anticipate that the actual building of the lake and the supporting structures will begin in 
mid 2006. . . . I look forward to working with [the petitioner] on this phase of the project. 
the "major client" is not clear from 
 general description. The activities described 
in 
 undated letter do not correlate closely to the tasks the petitioner described in his resume with 
regard to his most recent work with NSF International and Oracle. The petitioner's own description of his 
work and goals, written in early 2006, did not mention any upcoming work regarding the construction of an 
artificial fishing lake. 
letter attests to the petitioner's skills but does not establish that the petitioner stands out from his 
peers to an extent that would justify a national interest waiver. 
- 
n, a Senior Manager with Deloitte Consulting, stated: 
I have worked with [the petitioner] for several years and have witnessed outstanding insight 
and excellence with which he proffers business solutions. 
Most outstanding among his achievements was the solution he designed around Grants 
Accounting at the George Washington University, DC where we worked together for several 
months. The solution was adopted by Oracle Applications in later releases of the software 
which is widely used today to provide enhanced security for intellectual property. . . . 
[The petitioner] has a result oriented 'out-of-the-box' approach to issue resolution which 
ha[s] led to establishment of solution options that are especially valuable in today's security 
heightened business culture. Multiple times he initiated radical solutions to solving critical 
issues which enhanced the Oracle solution to Internal Security on business applications, 
helping to maintain the sanctity of our markets and optimizing investor returns and portfolio 
performances. 
- clearly has a high opinion of the petitioner and his skills, but the letter quoted above 
contains no specific information about the petitioner's past work or how it has influenced the field. Client 
satisfaction does not imply eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
On July 7, 2006, the director issued a request for evidence, instructing the petitioner to submit further 
docu~nentation to meet the guidelines set forth in Mutter of New York State Dept. of Tr.ur7sportutior1. The 
director stated that the petitioner had "not shown that his work has already had a national or far-reaching 
impact," and that "superior ability is not by itself sufficient cause for a national interest waiver." 
In response, the petitioner stated that "Oracle Software applications are the most widely used . . . world- 
wide," and that he has worked for a variety of clients including universities, public school systems in major 
cities, government agencies and large corporations. The petitioner highlighted a project with the Rhode 
Island Department of Transportation, in which he claimed to have been "significantly instrumental to solving 
a seven months puzzle of reconciling their core sub-ledger balances with their General Ledger, thus enabling 
them to close their financial records at year-end (which was behind schedule)." The petitioner stated: "1 
reckon it's only going to be a matter of time for me to be a globally renowned Oracle Solution Architect." 
With respect to the widespread use of Oracle products and applications, the reputation of the employer does 
not imply that its employees qualify for the waiver. There is nothing in the statute or regulations to suggest 
that certain employers are so highly regarded that their workers are presumptively exempt from labor 
certification or the statutory job offer requirement. The issue of eligibility rests on the merits of the individual 
alien, whose subjective and self-serving prediction that he will one day be "globally renowned" cannot settle 
the question. We must examine the qualities and accomplishments that lead the petitioner to hold such 
expectations. 
The petitioner submitted copies of various materials relating to his work, for example, electronic mail 
messages regarding a trip to Dublin, Ireland, to work with a pharmaceutical company there, and a "Customer 
Satisfaction Report" showing that the Rhode Island Department of Transportation strongly approved of the 
service it received from the petitioner. These documents establish that the petitioner is a valued Oracle 
employee who delivers satisfactory services to Oracle's clients. Professional competence, however, is not 
grounds for a national interest waiver. The materials submitted do nothing to distinguish the petitioner from 
other consultants at Oracle or other firms that offer similar services. 
The petitioner submitted copies of various professional certificates he had earned. The petitioner documented 
his membership in the Project Management Institute, the Information Systems Audit and Control Association, 
and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and his passing score on the examination to 
become a Certified Information Systems Auditor. The petitioner submitted no independent evidence of the 
significance or importance of these credentials. 
The petitioner claimed to be the author of four "peer-reviewed articles." Peer review is a process by which an 
article intended for publication is submitted to independent peers with knowledge in the relevant subject area, 
who then offer comments, criticism, and recommendations as to whether or not the article should be 
published. None of the petitioner's submissions show any indicia of peer-reviewed articles. They appear, 
rather, to be internal Oracle documents, akin to reports and memoranda, and thus appear to have been 
prepared in the normal course of the petitioner's duties. 
The director denied the petition on November 15, 2006, stating: "Beyond documentation that was created 
expressly for the purpose of supporting the petition, the record contains little evidence that would clearly 
delineate the beneficiary's claimed impact on the field." Tlle director concluded that the petitioner had not 
shown that his "individual contributions at Oracle are beyond the capabilities of any number of trained 
professionals in his field." 
On appeal, counsel states that the director "failed to sufficiently consider the significance or impact of 
petitioner's work, services, and contributions to renowned and universally recognized corporations, 
governmental institutions, and the society." The burden is on the petitioner to show that such contributions 
have been made, and establish the value of such contributions. In this proceeding, the petitioner has done 
little more than identie high-profile clients. 
Counsel asserts that the director "did not consider petitioner's membership in distinguished associations in the 
field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members as adjudged 
by recognized national or international experts." This language comes from regulations relating to a different 
immigrant classification (alien of extraordinary ability, under section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act). That aside, 
membership in a highly exclusive association could be evidence of the petitioner's reputation in the field. In 
this instance, however, the petitioner has not shown that any of the associations to which he belongs require 
outstanding achievements of their members as adjudged by recognized national or international experts. The 
petitioner has simply submitted copies of membership cards and certificates, with no further elaboration or 
explanation, and counsel now appears to fault the director for failing to assume that these memberships are of 
great significance in the petitioner's field. 
Counsel argues that the director disregarded Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation and relied on 
inapplicable assertions, for instance asserting that the petitioner had not shown "that the projects would have 
to be suspended without his presence." It is true that the precedent decision does not include such 
requirements, but the director's inapplicable assertions can be excised without affecting the outcome of that 
decision. 
Counsel then claims that "a project was indeed suspended because of petitioner's absence or need to perform 
another task." As evidence of "how invaluable petitioner was not only to the project but Oracle Consulting," 
counsel cites a previously submitted copy of an electronic mail message between two Oracle officials, 
indicating that the petitioner's ongoing training would dela 
 b one week) his travel to Dublin to work with a 
pharmaceutical company. The message concludes: "I hop h is willing to wait for [the petitioner]. . .he's 
worth the wait." As with so much else in the record, this message shows that the petitioner is a valued Oracle 
employee, but it does not distinguish him from other information systems consultants or show that it is in the 
national interest to exempt him from the job offerllabor certification requirement that typically applies to 
information systems consultants at Oracle and other companies. 
Counsel then lists the petitioner's past projects, but fails to establish that these projects were of unusual 
significance or importance or that the successful completion of such projects would have been beyond the 
reach of most in the petitioner's occupation. Counsel also repeats the petitioner's original claim that his non- 
work-related activities, such as his efforts as a volunteer soccer coach, "positively impact the society at 
large." At best, this information establishes that the petitioner is professionally competent and civic-minded. 
While these traits are to be encouraged, they do not q~~alify the petitioner for a special immigration benefit 
over and above the classification he seeks. Counsel has argued that the petitioner has played a pivotal role in 
nationally important projects, but the record is devoid of credible, independent evidence to support such 
claims. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 
(BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 
503,506 (BIA 1980). 
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. 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. 5 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.