dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: International Relations

identifYing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBUCCOpy 
DATE: Office: 
APR 21 2011 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi/.enshir and immigration Services 
AdministrCltive Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W .. MS 2090 
Washington_ DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
fiLE: 
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. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed plcase 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 tile a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for tiling such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the oftice that originally decided your case by tiling a Form 1-2908. Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)( I lei) requires that any motion must be 
tiled within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
derry Rhew 
hhieC Administrative Appeals Oftice 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director,_ Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Oflice (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 USc. § I I 53(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as an adjunct professor. The petitioner 
asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job ofter, and thus of an alien employment 
certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director did not contest that the 
petitioner qualifies for the classification sought but determined that the petitioner had not established 
that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United 
States. 
On appeal, counsel submits a briet~ evidence that postdates the filing of the petition and evidence 
already part of the record of proceeding. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO upholds the 
director's ultimate determination that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the benetit 
sought. While retention of knowledgeable professors in all tields is in the national interest, the 
petitioner has not established why the alien employment certification process described at 20 C.F.R. 
§ 656.18 does not address that interest in this case. Specifically, the record does not demonstrate the 
petitioner's int1uence in his field such that the alien employment certification process normally required 
for advanced degree professionals, including professors, should be waived in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the protessions 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. 
(8) Waiver of job otfer. 
(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, protessions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
Page 3 
The petItIoner holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from _ University. The petitioner's 
occupation falls within the pertinent regulatory definition of a profession. The petitioner thus qualities 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue is whether the 
petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus an alien employment 
certitication, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress 
did not provide a specitic definition of the phrase, "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest 
by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, IOlst Cong., 1 st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(lMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as tlexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must 
make a showing signiticantly 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 trom, or waiver of the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter olNew York State Dep't. ol Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), has set torth several tactors that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USC IS) 
must consider when evaluating a request tor a national interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show 
that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Jd. at 217. Next, the petitioner 
must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Jd. 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 qualitications. Jd. at 217-18. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on pro.lpeclive national benefit, the 
petitioner must establish that the alien's past recordjustities projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. Jd. at 219. The petitioner's sUbjective assurance that the alien will, in the tuture, serve the 
national interest cannot sutlice to establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" 
requires future contributions by the alien and does not facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. Jd. 
The AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit. _ 
international relations. The next consideration is whether the proposed benefits of the petitioner's 
cmployment would be national m scope. In response to the director's request tor additional 
evidence, counsel stated: 
Page 4 
problem and US 
foreign policy issues for US government and 
is of substantial direct benetit to 
issues and the threat 
are extremely important 
exceptional work in this area 
national in scope. Advising on 
is without doubt, National in Scope. 
The director acknowledged the evidence of the petitioner's articles, lectures and service as a 
commentator for news programs but concluded, without explanation, that the petitioner would not 
"directly or indirectly, impart a national-level benetit to the United States." 
On appeal, counsel repeats the language from his response to the request for additional evidence. At 
issue is whether the proposed benefits of the petitioner's work will be national in scope. The record 
lacks evidence that the petitioner has ever served as an advisor to U.S. government officials. The 
fact that the petitioner's students may go on to work for the U.S. government is insufficient to 
establish the national of his work. Nevertheless, he has authored articles on U.S. policy in 
relation to in widely distributed publications. Thus, the AAO does not 
contest that the proposed benefits of his work would be national in scope. 
It remains, then, to determine whether the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater 
extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. Eligibility for the 
waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position sought. In other 
words, the argument that a given project is so important that any alien qualified to work on this 
project must also qualifY for a national interest waiver is not persuasive. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 
218. Moreover, it cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique 
background," Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national 
interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States 
is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. Id. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, the AAO notes that 
original innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insullicient by itself Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id at 221, n. 7. 
The petitioner has authored several articles. 
institutions where he is working 
_ and_ University's 
general media such as 
_ International 
Page 5 
authored a book review in 
Uall"a":U an In Submitting an unsolicited opinion 
letter and translating an article do not demonstrate recognition of the petitioner's influence in the field. 
The AAO will consider the remaining publications below. 
While the above evidence reflects that the petitioner has disseminated his VIews, it does not 
demonstrate the ultimate influence of these publications. The record lacks evidence that other 
international relations experts have cited the petitioner's published work, that professors at a significant 
number of independent institutions have assigned these articles as required reading or comparable 
evidence of the influence of the above articles. 
The petitioner also submitted an article in the local The article reports on 
the_ Hall Lecture Series and notes the petitioner's participation in the series as a speaker. This 
local speaking engagement for the general public does not demonstrate the petitioner's influence in the 
field of _ international relations. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he gave a presentation or served as a panelist at the _ 
_ International Center for Scholars, the Institute, the _Foundation 
and the World Affairs Council. Counsel also references a and the 
_ School of Management at the The unsupported 
assertions of counsel, however, do not 9 I&N Dec. 533, 
534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Mafler of Laureano. 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez. 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The record does not contain evidence of the petitioner's 
The record does not establish that the above presentations represent more than the typical foreign policy 
discourse among those in academia and think tanks. The petitioner provided no evidence of the 
ultimate influence of these presentations. 
above, the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 
Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez. 17 I&N Dec. at 
506. 
a reporter for _ The 
coprcldLlce this weekly one-hour news broadcast that is 
Page 6 
broadcast on 300 stations throughout the United States.l _ confirms that he has "turned to [the 
1 numerous times for on-the-record interviews on issues of US_ relations, _ 
nuclear activities and human rights record, and broader_ issues." _praises 
the petitioner's "ability to deliver insightful analysis in a clear and captivating way for an American 
audience." The record also contains two transcripts of Online NewsHour features where the petitioner 
was one 0 r the commentators. 
On appeal, the petitioner submitted an article posted on www.cnn.comthatquotesthepetitioner.This 
article, however, postdates the filing of the petition. The petitioner must establish his eligibility as of 
that date. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Maller ofKaligbak, 141&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'1. Comm'r. 
1971 ). 
The above evidence demonstrates that a local radio and PBS have found the petitioner's 
knowledge of and its relations with and the United States useful in 
explaining current events to the public. The petitioner has not explained, however, how these 
appearances demonstrate the petitioner's intluence on the field of_ international relations. 
The record demonstrates that the petitioner has several years of experience. Moreover in 
the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted a 2008 
•••• Award _ certificate recognizing the petitioner as a Finalist for Arts and Culture 
Reporting. Ten years of experience is one type of evidence that may be submitted to establish 
exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). Similarly, recognition for achievements and 
significant contributions is another type of evidence that can be submitted to demonstrate exceptional 
ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(J:'). Because exceptional ability, by itselt~ does not justifY a waiver of 
the alien employment certiJication requirement, however, arguments hinging on the petitioner's 
experience or recognition, while relevant, are not dispositive to the matter at hand. NYSDOT, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 222. NEENA appears to be a local organization. Moreover, the petitioner was only a finalist. 
Regarding the petitioner's experience, nothing the statute suggests that the national interest waiver was 
designed as a blanket waiver for those with several years of experience. 
The remaining evidence consists of reference letters. The letters purportedly from _ and 
bear no signature and, thus, have no evidentiary value. On appeal,~ that 
the director "ignored" these expert opinions. Counsel cites a federal court decision without a full 
citation. The decision appears to be an unpublished district court decision. In contrast to the broad 
precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the AAO is not bound to 
follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising within the same 
district. See Maller of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 1993). The reasoning underlying a district 
judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the AAO; however, the 
analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. In addition, as the published 
I See lillp-,{i.IYv{\V~t"e''"QLld.0I:gL'"'~li~2Ils!ilMl) (accessed April 14. 20 II and incorporated into the record of 
proceedings). 
Page 7 
decisions of the district courts are not binding on the AAO outside of that particular proceeding, the 
unpublished decision of a district court would necessarily have even less persuasive value. 
Nevertheless, the AAO does not contest that properly signed reference letters must be considered and 
will do so below. 
Dean of the _ School at _ University, asserts that the petltlOner'S 
consistently been among the most highly rated" and draw a diverse group of students 
from nearby universities, "including government officials and officers of the U.S. Military." 
Regardless of the makeup of the students, a single teacher's impact at the national level is so 
attenuated as to be negligible. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. The fact that the petitioner 
teaches a popular course does not demonstrate his influence among academicians in the tield of 
_ international relations. 
also ~mer's "deep understanding of the history and culture of both 
the and __ civilizations that allows him to bring a rare intellectual 
perspective to the discussion of _ history and contemporary international politics'" Dean 
_ further praises the petitioner's comfort with_ and American culture, ability to 
commUnicate the complexities of the issues and skills as a public speaker. Finally, Dean __ 
affirms that the petitioner provides commentary in media outlets and speaks at various venues, 
enhancing the image of Tufts and advancing an understanding of the _peninsula. Dean 
_ however, provides no specific examples of how the petitioner's ideas have already 
influenced the field of_ international relations. For example, Dean _ does not 
reference articles by academicians, independent think tank reports or policy statements that cite the 
petitioner's work. 
_ Deputy National Intelligence Officer for_ asserts that she has known the pctitioner 
since her "student days" at the _ School in 1996 and praises his ability as a teacher. The 
petitioner, however, was a student at that school in 1996. He did not receive his Ph.D. until 1998. That 
said, the AAO does not discount that the petitioner may have served as a graduate teaching assistant or 
instructor at that time. _ atlirms the petitioner's abilities as a public speaker and predicts that 
the petitioner will play~ role in . U. relations for many years to come as a 
teacher as well as practitioner." Once again, Jetter is primarily conclusory without 
explaining how the field of international relations has changed due to the petitioner's influence. As she 
was formerly a fellow student at the _ School, her letter does not demonstrate the petitioner'S 
influence beyond his immediate circle of colleagues. 
In a second letter, _ asserts that the petitioner would serve the national interest to a greater 
degree than would an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications because of the 
petitioner's "broad knowledge of both_ and American history that is profound and unique not 
only in depth and insight but in its applicability to analyzing realistically all important issues related to 
US_relations." Merely repeating the legal standards does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
Page 8 
proof 2 Similarly, USC1S need not accept primarily conclusory assertions 3 _provides no 
concrete examples of the petitioner's influence in the field o~international relations, 
Chair in Political Economy at the 
the petitioner as "a brilliant and rising young scholar in the field 
CUlll1Ims that he invited the petitioner to lecture at "a number of 
the petitioner impressed the audiences. While this infoffi1ation 
suggests that the petitioner has gained exposure of his ideas, does not explain how the 
petitioner has actually influenced his field. 
an assistant professor at University, asserts that the petitioner's 
knowledge and experience "will be a great to .," that the petitioner is "respected and 
well loved by his students" and fellow professors and that his "insights and expertise are well 
appreciated by policy circles and mass media." Professor _ does not explain how he became 
aware of the petitioner's work. The petitioner previously ~d at Sogang University in Seoul. 
Professor _ also fails to explain how the field of~ international relations has changed as a 
result of the petitioner's influence. 
Finally, a professor at_ University, asserts that he met the petitioner when a 
professor at the to Professor_ Professor_ further asserts that 
he recommended the petitioner to for a one semester course and invited the to take 
over the direction of the Colloquium for one year. that the 
resulting colloquium was "one of the most stimulating in recent~:' This letter, however, still 
does not demonstrate the petitioner's influence beyond the greater~ea. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "selt~serving." See, e.g, Malter ojS-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (B1A 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 ojY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (B1A 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the tield are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Maller 
oj Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 I, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible lor making the linal 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; uscrs may, as the AAO has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
2 Fedin Bros. Co. Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y 1989), uird, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
AvyrAssociales. Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at '5 (S.D.N.Y.). 
1 1756. Inc. v. The Allorney General o(lhe Uniled Slales. 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. DisL 1990). 
Page 9 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-. 24 I&N Dec. 
500. n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). uscrs 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 Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter olTreasure Craft olCalijiJrnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of knowledge and unique perspective 
without specifically identifying contributions to the field and providing specific examples of how 
those contributions have influenced the field. As stated above, merely repeating the legal standards 
does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof4 The petitioner submitted no letters from anyone 
who had not worked with, studied with or interviewed the petitioner and failed to submit sunicient 
corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition. which could have 
bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
Ultimately, the petitioner is an experienced professor in his field who has written articles, including 
some opinion pieces, and has provided commentary to the media. The petitioner has earned the respect 
of his colleagues and those who have interviewed him. Nevertheless, the record lacks evidence of his 
wider int1uence in the field such that a waiver of the alien employment certification process is 
warranted in the national interest. Nothing in the legislative history suggests that the national interest 
waiver was intended simply as a means for cmploycrs (or self~petitioning aliens) to avoid the 
inconvenience of the alien employment certification process. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 223. 
As is clear trom 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 ofajob 
otfer 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 requircment of an approved alien employment 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. 
'Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108. affd, 905 F. 2d at 41; Avyr Assodates. Inc., 1997 WI. 188942 
at *5. Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. 1756. Inc .. 745 F. Supp. at 15.