dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: International Law

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Imrmgration Services 
Office ofAdrn~nlstrative Appeals MS 2090 
- .,A "7 
 Washington, DC 20529-2090 
,I.-. k 
" , *..(--,:,y- 8, *. - 
$rJP;lL-\ ' , . 
-- *I+ 
U. S. Citizenship 
. , 
p7:, ' .. " 
- -* 
. .-L;;:~ and Immigration 
C - 
"?, *a*,- ' 
;rs;,,;t~:J 6.'- j. -- Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date: MAY 0 4 2009 
LIN 07 179 51062 
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. tj 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF 01; PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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. 9 103.5 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. 4 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
,tdcting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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 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. !j 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner refers to himself as a "Legal Expert [on] International Law of the Sea and International 
Relations." 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 fi-om the requirement of a job offer would be in the 
national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a personal statement and a new witness letter. The petitioner 
indicates that a brief will be forthcoming within 30 days. To date, seven months after the filing of 
the appeal on September 2, 2008, the record contains no further substantive submission from the 
petitioner. We therefore consider the record to be complete as it now stands. 
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 
Page 3 
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, 1 Olst 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] 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 fi-om, 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 (Cornmr. 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, whiIe 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 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 aIien 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 4, 2007. On that form, instructed to provide a 
brief job description, the petitioner stated: "Provision of legal advice related to delimitation of 
extended Continental Shelf and related In. Law of the Sea Issues, Application of International 
investment law, Application of International Humanitarian law in combatting [sic] terrorism." 
The petitioner listed his various professional positions and duties, including the following excerpts: 
Page 4 
Legal Officer (International Law), Legal Adviser's Division of the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka (fi-om 1 November 2003) and deal with public 
International Law issues in my day-to-day functions, which includes [sic]: 
- 
 Furnishing legal advice on matters of International Law through the 
Secretary 1 Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the 
Divisions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
- 
 Participation in negotiations and conclusions of International Agreements 
- 
 Advising in connection with the negotiation and implementation of any 
Treaty to which Sri Lanka is a Party. 
Coordinated the work of the Sri Lanka's DEOCOM project since the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs has been identified as the focal Ministry responsible in the 
preparation of Sri Lanka's claim to the UN Commission on the Continental Shelf. . . . 
Research Fellow under the United Nations Fellowship Programme on Law 
of the Sea (28 May 2006 to 20 April 2007). Six months supervised 
research with Professor of Law, Betsy Baker, Harvard law School and at 
the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of Sea, Office of 
Legal Affairs of United Nations in UNHQ, New York. . . . 
Served as the Representative of the Government of Sri Lanka at the four meetings of 
the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) Legal Experts 
Committee in 2005 on Investment and Dispute Settlement. . . . 
Served as a Member of the hi-level [sic] Sri Lanka Delegation that negotiated the 
India-Sri Lanka Defence Cooperation Agreement and MOU on Palaly Airbase. 
Member of the hi-level [sic] Sri Lanka Delegation which currently negotiates the 
Indo-Lanka Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) 
Member of the Sri Lanka Delegation, which negotiated Air Services Agreements with 
Austria, Bangladesh, China and Thailand. 
Member of the Sri Lanka Delegations for bilateral discussions with India, Maldives, 
Bangladesh, Bunna and Indonesia concerning the proposed Sethusamuduram Ship 
Channel Project and the Continental Shelf Claim to be submitted to the UN. 
In a statement accompanying the initial filing of the petition, the petitioner stated: "I request [a] 
National Interest waiver of a job offer and labor certification because the delays associated with such 
a process would be detrimental to the interest of the United States." The petitioner did not explain 
why he could not perform his functions as a nonimmigrant (as he is doing now) while an application 
for labor certification is pending. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that the national interest 
waiver was intended simply as a means for employers (or self-petitioning aliens) to avoid the 
inconvenience of the labor certification process. Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation 
at 223. 
Regarding his qualifications, the petitioner stated: 
I am an expert in International Law with experience in initially [sic] in Asia, then in 
Europe and now in the United States. . . . 
I have a uniquely relevant work experience in application of Law of the Sea in 
relation to delimitation of the outer limits of the extended continental shelf as well as 
public international law in particular International Humanitarian Law and 
International Investment Law. I have worked for the United Nations Division of 
Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea at its headquarters in New York as well as been the 
Legal Advisor and Legal Officer (International Law) of the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs in Sri Lanka. 
My expertise makes me one of the very few persons able to analyze legality of 
country claims on its ocean jurisdictional boundaries and in particular extended 
continental shelf and related claims on oil and other energy resources. Under the 
binding requirements of the UN Convention on law of the sea, countries are required 
to submit their claims of extended continental shelf before the [sic] 13 May 2009 to 
the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. This has made me a 
sought after legal expert by countries around the world. 
Furthermore, given my expertise and experience I am considered as an authoritative 
consultant and advisor on many other international law issues exclusively relevant to 
USA in the areas of International humanitarian law and International law on 
Investments. Some books I have published related to my work has [sic] been released 
in the US. 
The petitioner noted "the recent seizure of 15 UK sailors by Iran for allegedly crossing into Iranian 
territorial waters," and claimed that the issues surrounding such crises "can only be answered by 
persons in the caliber of me [sic] having knowledge and a unique combination of Diplomatic 
relations, Law of the Sea and Humanitarian Law." The petitioner also discussed recent disputes 
regarding access to hydrocarbon resources beneath the Arctic Sea, and stated his intention of 
"working close [sic] with the authorities of US in analyzing the areas of concern and potential 
problems endangering national interest of US in light of maritime boundaries going to be established 
by the neighboring countries that are of strategic interest to us." The petitioner also asserted that his 
"advanced knowledge in the practical aspect of applying international humanitarian law to terrorist 
suspects" would benefit the United States. 
Along with copies of his credentials, the petitioner submitted several witness letters with the initial 
filing of the petition. All of the witnesses have had close contact with the petitioner in varying 
capacities. Several of the letters were written well before the petition's June 2007 filing date, for 
reasons unrelated to the petition. For example, a March 6, 2006 letter from - 
- of the University of Colombo, Sri Lanka, recommended the petitioner "for the intended 
advanced research programme," while an October 12,2006 letter from fi 
also of the University of Colombo, includes a passage that reads "I understand that he has now 
applied for a Ph.D. program at your prestigious university." In a letter dated April 19, 2002, more 
than five years before the filing of the petition, Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva of Sri Lanka's Supreme 
Court stated that the petitioner "has a deep and abiding interest in the law and with the march of 
time, he will do well in the profession." 
I have known [the petitioner] for over 10 years. . . . I first came to know [the 
petitioner] when I addressed the Law Students Union (LSU) of Sri Lanka in 1995. 
[The petitioner] was the President of the LSU at that time. He was my student at the 
University of Colombo when he followed the Post-graduate Diploma in Forensic 
Medicine. . . . He is currently a mid-career professional attached to the Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs. He has been a very productive advisor in matters of International 
Law to the Government of Sri Lanka. 
. . . During the regular interactions I had with him, I have learnt that [the petitioner] 
would be an asset in no small way to the United States if he is given the opportunity 
to remain in the United States and continue in his field. 
[The petitioner] has been of great assistance during the five years he practiced with 
me. He has a strong sense of responsibility and all the qualities needed for a clever 
trial lawyer. He successfully argued matters before [the] Supreme Court and Court of 
Appeal and conducted trials in High Court by showing great promise. He earned the 
respect of judges for his clarity of style and enthusiasm. However to my dismay [the 
petitioner] left the private Bar in 2002 to pursue a career in international law. 
. . . I am familiar with [the petitioner's] exceptional achievements and superior 
capabilities in his intrinsic fields of expertise, the international law of the sea and 
international humanitarian law and it would be in the national interest of this great 
nation if he is allowed to serve in the US. 
supervised the petitioner's master's studies at the University of 
Groningen, the Netherlands. - stated that the petitioner "complet[ed] his Masters 
thesis . . . in a highly exemplary manner" and has since "been a very constructive advisor on matters 
of Public International Law to the Government of Sri Lanka." 
, Secretary-General of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and former 
Chairman of the International Law Commission at The Hague, the Netherlands, stated: 
initially attached to the chambers of one of my close friends,- 
a much respected senior President's Counsel in Sri Lanka. I learnt 
that [the petitioner] had a promising career in the private Bar where he argued matters 
before Supreme Court and Court of Appeal and conducted trials in High Court before 
pursuing higher studies in his chosen field of expertise, international law. . . . 
During the period he studied in The Hague, I also had the opportunity to have the 
services of [the petitioner] in preparing briefs for the claims before the Iran-United 
States Claims Tribunal. He has been of great assistance in Tribunal's efforts to 
strengthen the international law. He impressed me as a young scholar capable of 
dealing with intricate issues both on the law and facts. . . . 
[The petitioner] had gathered the unique experience, only handful of persons can 
posses [sic] as the representative of the Government of Sri Lanka in advising with the 
negotiation and implementation of any treaty to which Sri Lanka is a party, which 
could be used in benefit of. . . the United States. 
Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, stated: 
[The petitioner] came under direct supervision of me when he conducted a research 
study at Harvard Law School as a United Nations - The Nippon Foundation Fellow 
on Law of the Sea from June 2006 to January 2007. . . . 
I have been very pleased with the outcome of research work that [the petitioner] 
carried on behalf his [sic] Government. . . . I found him to be well equipped to handle 
such a research [sic] on a complex and evolving subject of international law of the 
sea. 
, Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea at the UN 
Office of Legal Affairs, stated that the petitioner "came under the direct supervision of me" during 
the petitioner's 2006-2007 research fellowship. stated thai the petitioner "has 
advanced awareness and understanding of key issues and best international practices in ocean affairs 
management, including professional and managerial capacities and competencies," and concluded 
that the petitioner's "well-reasoned analysis on the evolving law of the sea obligations would be of 
special interest to legal scholars and practitioners of law of the sea." 
Programme Advisor at the UN Office of Legal Affairs, stated that the petitioner 
"assisted me in preparing briefs for the United Nations Commission on Delimitation of Continental 
Shelf and other work related to ocean affairs and law of the sea." added: "I am certain 
that his paper on the evolving International law obligations and the Sethusamuduram Ship Channel 
Project would be immensely useful to the Government of Sri Lanka." 
The letters show that the petitioner has undergone advanced training, with rare opportunities for 
high-level work with the Sri Lankan government and the UN, but experience of this kind is not, on 
its face, presumptive evidence of eligibility for the waiver. The witnesses detailed the petitioner's 
training and experience, but with minimal discussion of the petitioner's specific accomplishments. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of his writings, both published and unpublished, but with no 
evidence as to the impact or significance of these materials. The writings do not, by their mere 
existence, demonstrate the petitioner's eligibility for the waiver. The petitioner has not shown how 
these materials have affected international relations, the law of the sea, human rights law, or other 
subjects on which the petitioner has touched. It cannot suffice for the petitioner to show that he 
possesses professional training in an important field of endeavor; he must also show that it is in the 
national interest for him, in particular, to engage in that field in the United States. 
On April 8, 2008, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE). The director advised the 
petitioner: "Regardless of your particular experience or skills, even assuming they are unique, you 
must establish that the benefit which you will provide to the United States so outweighs the national 
interest in protecting U.S. workers through the labor certification process that the process should not 
be required in your case." 
The director instructed the petitioner to support his claims, stating, for instance: 
You wrote that you are "a sought after legal expert by countries around the world." 
Please submit copies of the correspondence which you have received from outside the 
United States asking you to serve as a legal expert. 
. . . Please submit documentary evidence that any government other than that of Sri 
Lanka has considered your opinions as authoritative. 
The director also instructed the petitioner to establish the impact of his publications. 
In response, the petitioner discussed the overall importance of his area of expertise, and stated: "I 
have [a] considerable degree of influence and expertise in some major provisions that were pressed 
by the Law of the Sea Convention for the United States to accept." The petitioner asserted: "once 
my immigration status is resolved I have the chalice of becoming a part of U.S. authorities resolving 
issues and drafting implementing legislation." The petitioner did not demonstrate that "US. 
authorities" have, thus far, expressed any intention of using the petitioner's services in this regard. 
Even then, the petitioner acknowledges that this involvement would first require that the United 
States join various international agreements which, to date, the United States has not done. The 
petitioner thus indicates that his proposed national benefit is contingent on diplomatic factors beyond 
his apparent control. 
The petitioner submitted background documentation regarding issues relating to the efforts of 
Presidents Clinton and Bush, and other top government officials, to persuade the Senate to accede to 
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and some senators' resistance to taking such action. 
These materials do not reflect the petitioner's actions or the effects thereof. 
The petitioner also submitted several new letters, all from either the Sri Lankan government or from 
institutions where the petitioner has worked or trained. In her second letter, 
stated: - 
[The petitioner] had a critical role to play in support of the preparation of Sri 
Lanka['s] claim on the extended Continental Shelf. [The petitioner's] close 
collaboration with United Nations Division on Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea has 
allowed him to serve as one of several legal and technical expert groups contributing 
to the United Nations Comnlission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf on 
examining country claims of the extended Continental Shelf. 
[The petitioner] has also participated in the drafting of such documents as "Rules of 
Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf'; "Legal and 
Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf '; and 
"Modus Operandi of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf." 
He has assisted the work of subcommittees of the Commission considering proposals 
by Brazil and (jointly) by Ireland, Great Britain, France and Spain on delimitation of 
the continental shelf in terms of the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea. 
It is very rare to find a US national who has gained the similar experience as [the 
petitioner] at the highest possible level on law of the sea issues. He has contributed 
immensely to Sri Lanka's offshore oil exploration activities by providing necessary 
legal framework and preparing their country claims besides he has gained the first 
hand experience at the highly complicated process at the United Nations. 
Vice Chairman of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, 
stated: 
I am very familiar with [the petitioner's] work related to the Law of the Sea because 
of our close collaboration through the work. . . . 
I was particularly impressed with [the petitioner's] contribution during the 
subcommittee sessions of the Commission considering proposals by Brazil and 
(jointly) by Ireland, Great Britain, France and Spain on delimitation of the continental 
shelf. He also participated in the drafting and renewing of such documents as "Rules 
of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf', "Scientific 
Page 10 
and Technical Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf', 
and "Modus Operandi of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf." 
of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf stated: 
This is to certify that [the petitioner's] knowledge and experience have been useful to 
the Commission on Limits of the Continental Shelf at the subcommittee stage in 
reviewing the proposals submitted by Brazil and (jointly) by Ireland, Great Britain, 
France and Spain on delimitation of the continental shelf. [The petitioner] also 
participated in the drafting and renewing of such documents as "Rules of Procedure 
of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf', "Scientific and Technical 
Guidelines of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf', and "Modus 
Operandi of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf." . . . 
[The petitioner's] joint presentation with Dr. R. Edwards . . . analyzing geo-political 
aspects of continental margins at Special Session on Article 76 at the 21St Session of 
the Comniissioii received much accolade from the legal and scientific academia. In 
fact I have been very pleased with the outcome of research work that [the petitioner] 
has handled at the Division. 
We note the similarly worded passages in the three letters quoted above. The record contains no 
objective documentation of the 'accolade" mentioned in letter. 
[The petitioner] came under the direct supervision of me when he worked as the 
Legal Officer (International Law) at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Sri Lanka. He 
has been a very prolific advisor in matters of international law to the Government of 
Sri Lanka. 
. . . [The petitioner] was consulted on a regular basis in the drafting, interpretation and 
implementation of international agreements and treaties both bilateral and multilateral 
to which Sri Lanka is a party. . . . 
[The petitioner-] has been instrumental in helping [the] Government of Sri Lanka to 
amicably settle a number of disputes with neighboring countries. 
- Professor at the University of Peradeniya and Director of the DEOCOM 
Project of Sri Lanka, stated that the petitioner "has experience of leading negotiations between other 
countries." 
 described a number of the petitioner's activities, stating for instance 
that the petitioner "acted as "facilitator' during negotiations [that settled an international boundary 
dispute] between Sri Lanka, India and Maldives." 
The director denied the petition 011 July 28,2008. The director acknowledged the intrinsic merit and 
national scope of the petitioner's work, but found that the petitioner had failed to distinguish himself 
from others with similar expertise. The director stated: "the petitioner failed to submit evidence 
which demonstrated that his opinion [of the value of his work] was shared beyond his immediate 
circle of acquaintances." 
The director noted that the RFE included requests for evidence addressing specific points, such as 
the assertion that the petitioner is "a sought after legal expert by countries around the world." 
Finding that the petitioner had not addressed these requests, the director cited 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(14), which states that failure to submit requested evidence which precludes a material line 
of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts: 
I have NOT left any material line of inquiry or point, which the Service raised, 
unattended. 1 have answered every line of inquiry raised in the Request for Evidence 
(RFE) . 
The reason why it appears that I have not responded to certain lines of inquiry is 
because of an error on [the] part of the Service which considered [it] obligatory for 
me to exclusively provide a very specific document (e[.]g. Letter fiom the UN 
Commission on the limits of the Continental Shelf that it officially sought my opinion 
and letters of correspondence with governments other than Sri Lanka), which is most 
impractical for any one in this field as its [sic] simply not the way, things are done in 
the International setting. The impracticability [sic] of the request obligated me to 
seek other means of responding to the relevant lines of inquiry. The Service has 
failed to link the evidence 1 provided with the lines of inquiry raised in the RFE. I 
inten[d] to clearly demonstrate this link in my brief that will be submitted to you 
within tlie next 30 days. 
(Emphasis in original.) As noted previously, the record contains no subsequent brief from the 
petitioner. Also, while the director requested documentary evidence to support the petitioner's 
claims, the director did not require "very specific document[s]" as the petitioner claims. The 
director, for instance, did not request a "[lletter from the UN Commission on the [Llimits of the 
Continental Shelf." Rather, the director stated: "Please submit evidence that the UN Commission on 
the Limits of the Continental Shelf has officially sought your expertise and that its members have 
considered your opinions as authoritative." This evidence could take the form of a letter, but need 
not necessarily do so. 
We reject the assertion that the director has arbitrarily imposed an onerous evidentiary burden. The 
petitioner took it upon himself to claim to be "a sought after legal expert by countries around the 
world." If there is international demand for the petitioner's services, some evidence of that demand 
ought to exist. If there is no international demand for his services, then the petitioner's claim to the 
Page 12 
contrary is unsupported at best, and false at worst. If there exists no evidence of international 
demand for his services, then it is not clear how the petitioner would know of this demand. The 
petitioner has neither submitted nor even identified any evidence to support his claim. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Commr. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Crqfi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
The petitioner asserts that the witnesses of record "are not my personal friends or simple immediate 
acquaintances. They are professionals of the highest caliber, whose integrity prevents them fi-om 
reporting any fact biased in my favor." The integrity of the petitioner's witnesses is not our principal 
concern here. Rather, we note that the petitioner has claimed an international reputation in his field 
of endeavor, yet all of his witnesses have worked closely with him as teachers, supervisors or 
collaborators. This distribution of witnesses does not readily imply the wider reputation that the 
petitioner claims. When the director requested evidence to show that the petitioner's reputation 
extends beyond his mentors and co-workers, the petitioner responded by submitting letters from his 
mentors and co-workers. 
The petitioner asserts that the director failed to consider evidence of his "influence on the key 
international law issues affecting [the] Government of Sri Lanka and in particularly [sic] the law of 
the sea matters and the great impact [he] made at the decision making table." The director did not 
dismiss this evidence. Nevertheless, the petitioner does not seek immigration benefits in order to 
look after the interests of Sri Lanka. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate wider applicability of 
his specialized knowledge. Furthermore, for every issue involving international disputes or 
contention, there are diplomats, attorneys, advisors and others, weighing in on every perspective of 
every issue. We duly acknowledge that the petitioner has engaged in high level discussions on 
behalf of Sri Lanka, but other qualified experts do much the same on behalf of many other countries. 
The petitioner has not shown how he differs from others engaged in similar work, which he must do 
because he seeks not only classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 
but also the additional benefit of a national interest waiver. Simply being a high-level government 
negotiator does not establish eligibility for the waiver; there exists no statutory blanket waiver for 
individuals in the petitioner's field. 
The only new exhibit submitted on appeal is a July 25, 2008 letter from. Mr. -1 
does not state his title, but he uses the letterhead of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 
Geneva, Switzerland. states: 
1 am writing this letter as a fellow academic in the field of international law who uses 
your writings in my teaching work, most recently at the Southern University of New 
Hampshire. I have recently read your upcoming book on application of international 
humanitarian law to UN Forces and found it very useful and insightful. 
You are clearly an outstanding legal expert and your unique and valuable expertise in 
Public International Law in particular application of international Humanitarian law is 
essential to the development of new approach for the conflict management [sic]. . . . 
Your outstanding qualifications are continuing to be evidenced all the way through 
your career. . . . It is clear to me that you are an extremely dedicated, hard-working, 
innovative, and talented legal expert who can deftly perform a wide variety of 
sophisticated techniques in legal research. 
The letter includes several paragraphs describing sections of the petitioner's book, e.g., "Part 1 is 
written for the benefit of all those involved in UN peacekeeping. . . . Chapter 5 outlines the key 
elements of application of international Humanitarian Law to UN Forces." The purpose of this 
section of the letter is not clear, because the petitioner wrote the book in question and therefore he 
requires no summary or description of the book's contents. 
With regard to the reference to the petitioner's "upcoming book on application of international 
humanitarian law, to UN Forces," we note that Zeilan Press, a self-publishing firm in Newton, 
Massachusetts, published Application of International Humanitarian Law to United Nations Forces 
in April 2007; a printed copy accompanied the petitioner's initial submission. It is not clear in what 
sense this book was still "upcoming" fifteen months after its publication. In any case, Mr. Mburu's 
letter is not strong evidence of the petitioner's influence or impact in the field of human rights law. 
The record indicates that the petitioner has been dedicated and successful in his chosen field of 
endeavor. When asked for evidence that distinguishes him ti-om others in the field, however, the 
petitioner has done little more than list his activities and establish his credentials, which beg the 
question of how he is distinct from othsrs performing similar work. 
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.