dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

identi@ ing data deieted. !o 
prevent cledy unw wanted 
invasion of vanal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
US. Department of IIomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
EAC 06 110 50107 
 JAN 2 8 2008 
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. 8 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF 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. 
w 
Xobert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office 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. tj 1 153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as an "advocate/lawyer." The petitioner 
asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an alien employment 
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 had 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 that: 
(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 petitioner holds a Bachelor of Laws, a Master of Arts degree in Political Science and a Master of 
Arts degree in Islamic Studies all from the University of the Punjab in Pakistan. The petitioner also has 
a Master of Law from the University of Karachi. All of the above education was evaluated in the 
aggregate as equivalent to a baccalaureate from a regionally accredited institution in the United States 
plus one year of graduate study. The director did not contest that petitioner's occupation falls within 
the pertinent regulatory definition of a profession. The petitioner thus qualifies as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. 
Throughout the proceeding, the petitioner has also claimed eligibility as an alien of exceptional ability. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in failing to consider this claim. Whether or not the 
petitioner may qualify as an alien of exceptional ability is moot, however, because the director accepted 
that the petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The "alien of 
exceptional ability" classification normally requires an alien employment certification. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2)(A). 
While the petitioner's claims regarding exceptional ability are moot, we note that they are extremely 
tenuous. For example, the petitioner relies on his license to practice law in Pakistan to meet the 
professional license criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). A license to practice a 
profession, by itself, shall not be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. Section 
203(b)(2)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2)(C). Rather, the evidence submitted to meet the 
regulatory criteria must be indicative of a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered in the field. 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2)(definition of exceptional ability). A license that is 
required to practice in the field is not indicative of a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field. Moreover, the petitioner seeks employment as an 
"advocate/lawyer7' in the United States. The petitioner has not established that his foreign law license 
allows him to practice as an "advocate/lawyer" in the United States or, if it does, that it sets him above 
those who are licensed to practice law in the United States. 
The remaining issue is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, 
and thus an alien employment certification, is in the national interest. Neither the statute nor pertinent 
regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress did not provide a specific 
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, 101 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service 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 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 Dep % of Trans-. , 22 I&N Dec. 2 1 5, 2 1 7- 1 8 (Commr. 1 998)(hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), 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. Id. at 217. Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national 
in scope. Id. 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. Id. at 2 17- 1 8. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges onprospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. Id. at 2 19. 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. Id. 
As stated above, the petitioner has repeatedly asserted that his exceptional ability warrants a waiver of 
the alien employment certification process in the national interest. As stated above, "exceptional 
ability" is not, by itself, sufficient to cause for a national interest waiver; the benefit which the alien 
presents to his or her field of endeavor must greatly exceed the "achievements and significant 
contributions" contemplated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). Id at 218. See also id. 
at 222 (exceptional ability by itself does not justify a waiver of the alien employment certification 
requirement; thus, arguments hinging on the regulatory criteria for that classification are not 
dispositive.) 
We concur with the director that the petitioner proposes to work in an area of intrinsic merit, 
exporting U.S. goods to Asia and Africa. The director did not contest that the proposed benefits of 
his work, increased exports from the United States and improved economic conditions in Asia and 
Africa, 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, we generally do not accept 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. Id. at 
218. Moreover, it cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique 
background." Id. at 221. 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 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 element 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, we note that original 
innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted a handwritten eleven-page letter that is minimally legible. The first 
part of the letter merely recounts the petitioner's education and employment history. Section 8, 
entitled "Evidence Of Recognition For Achievements And Significant Contributions to the Industry 
or Field by Peers, Government Entities Or Professional Or Business Organizations," discusses the 
petitioner's observations of the "European Economic Community" (European Union or EU), his 
intention to write two books about the EU, and his belief that African and Asian nations would 
benefit from a similar agreement. 
Section 9 of the petitioner's initial letter is entitled "How the Alien Will Make A Living As a Self- 
Employed Lawyer, International Trade Consultant & Industrial Development Advisor." The 
petitioner begins by asserting that the United States, due to its size, economy, form of government 
and manufacturing base, is in an excellent position to serve as a source of industrial development 
projects, equipment, machinery, credit and "finance facilities" for Africa and Asia. These projects 
would lead to the "eradication of poverty." The petitioner proposes to "promote and negotiate the 
export marketing" of United State products and services and asserts that his commitment to Africa 
and Asia has been ongoing for three years. 
The petitioner submitted: (1) his education credentials, (2) his 1983 admission to the Punjab Bar 
Council, (3) his certificate for completion of an English as a Second Language course, (4) his 2001 
readmission to the Punjab Bar Council, (5) his 1994 certificate from the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) confirming his completion of a USDA "training program" entitled "Designing 
and Managing Integrated Agricultural and Rural Development Programs," (6) his "Service 
Certificate" confirming employment as the Deputy Secretary of the Pakistan Central Cotton 
Committee, Karachi from January 1987 to December 1999, (7) the duties of that position, (8) 
evidence of pay increases, (9) a response letter from the Deputy Director of Britain's Economic 
Affairs Division wishing the petitioner success in promoting African and Asian economic 
cooperating and referring him to the division's website and that of the EU and (10) a letter from the 
petitioner to "The Presidents / The Prime Ministers, Of All Nations in Africa and Asia" noting the 
significance of the EU and urging a similar cooperation among African and Asian nations. 
On July 24, 2006, the director issued a request for additional evidence. Specifically, the director 
requested evidence of how the petitioner would benefit the national interest to a greater extent than a 
U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications, including letters from independent references. 
In response, the petitioner asserts that the alien employment certification process should be waived 
because it is a long process that would "delay in export of marketing of industrial equipments from 
the United States to countries of Africa and Asia and loss of foreign exchange." The petitioner 
further asserts that a U.S. worker would not have his experience as a "Promoter of Afro-Asian 
Economic Community, Industrial Development Advisor and International Trade Consultant." The 
 , 
petitioner asserts that his 13 years of experience as a Deputy Secretary, including the promotion of 
Pakistani cotton, resulted in an understanding of international trade and the export market. The 
petitioner also purports to be researching the American legal system, the EU, African and Asian 
Page 6 
economic communities and business and industrial issues in Africa and Asia with the intention of 
writing books on these subjects. Finally, the petitioner notes that he requested, in September 2006, 
that the economic counselors of African and Asian nations provide him with information about their 
future development projects. 
In response to the director's notice, the petitioner submitted a September 25,2006 letter addressed to 
"The Economic Counsellors of Embassies of all African and Asian countries in Washington, D.C., 
USA" requesting "information about [their] country[s]'s future industrial development programs so 
that [the petitioner might] be able to manage and negotiate for procurement and export of required 
industrial development projects plants and factories from the United States of America for 
installation in" their countries. The petitioner also submitted evidence of his employment prior to 
1982, his own self-serving statement chronicling his employment history and a "Character 
Certificate" from a retired secretary of the Pakistan Central Cotton Committee confirming the 
petitioner's employment with that committee and praising his character and professionalism. The 
petitioner did not submit letters from independent references as requested. 
The director denied the petition, concluding that the petitioner had not "presented clear evidence to 
show that his accomplishments are an indicator of future benefit to the United States. Moreover, the 
petitioner has not influenced the field of endeavor." 
On appeal, the petitioner reiterates his employment history and asserts that the director "has not 
exercised his discretion judiciously in processing this case." More specifically, the petitioner asserts 
that the alien employment certification process is not "a viable option." The petitioner further states 
that he demonstrated that his past accomplishments benefited Pakistan by promoting cotton. Further 
on, the petitioner states: 
The petitioner-appellant got experience of promotion of export marketing of Pakistan 
cotton crop during his service period with the Pakistan Central Cotton Committee[,] a 
department of the Government of Pakistan as Deputy Secretary. The petitioner- 
appellant will use this his [sic] experience of promotion of export marketing in the 
United States. He will promote and negotiate for export marketing of industrial 
equipments, plants, machinery and services, from the United States to the developing 
countries of Africa and Asia, worth of [sic] billions of dollars, as an International 
Trade ConsultantILawyer." 
The petitioner submits documentation relating to the importance of exports to the U.S. economy, 
which the director did not contest. As stated above, however, we generally do not accept 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. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 21 8. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner has not demonstrated sufficient success in the field he 
plans to pursue. The petitioner has not demonstrated any experience with marketing technology or 
equipment to developing countries. While the petitioner may have been pursuing this intention for 
several years, he has not demonstrated any interest from any African or Asian nation or that he has 
connections with African and Asian business leaders. The fact that the petitioner has sent letters to 
African and Asian government leaders and representatives does not demonstrate their reciprocal 
interest in his proposals. Moreover, the petitioner has not demonstrated that he is an expert on the EU 
model and is a respected authority for how that model could be applied in Africa or Asia. For example, 
the petitioner's only contact with the EU was to contact them for background information and to 
receive a response advising him to get the information from the Internet, information that is available to 
any individual. In addition, he has not authored well-received published articles or books on applying 
the EU model to Africa or Asia or on exporting technology or equipment to those continents; he has not 
demonstrated that any U.S. developer or manufacturer has expressed an interest in utilizing his services 
and he has not submitted letters from high-level U.S. government officials supporting the petition. 
While the petitioner appears to have experience marketing Pakistani cotton more than five years before 
the petition was filed, he has not demonstrated that this experience is easily transferable to promoting 
the export of U.S. technology and equipment to Africa and Asia. Moreover, he has not demonstrated 
unique success marketing cotton. For example, the petitioner has not documented that Pakistani 
exports of cotton increased during his tenure more than at other times or that he influenced others 
involved in the export and promotion of agricultural products. 
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 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. 8 1 3 6 1. 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 an alien employment certification certified by the Department of Labor, appropriate 
supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.