dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachuseusAve N.wr MS2090
washington.DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE:9 g 4 79]] OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degreeor anAlienofExceptionalAbility PursuanttoSection203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ l 153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motiontoreconsideror amotionto reopen.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcasebyfiling aFormI-290B,Noticeof AppealorMotion,
with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(l)(i)requiresthatany motionmustbe filed
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,VermontServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition. The AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) dismissedthe petitioner's appealfrom that
decision. After receiving correspondencefrom the petitioner,the AAO moved to reopenthe
proceeding,andissuedanewdecisionaffirmingthedenialof thepetition. Thematteris nowbefore
the AAO on a motion to reconsider.The AAO will grantthe motion andaffirm thedenialof the
petition.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationpursuantto section203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct
(theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asa memberof theprofessionsholdingan advanceddegree.The
petitionerseeksemploymentas an attorney. The petitionerdid not submit an approvedlabor
certificationwith thepetition. Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerdidnotqualifyforclassificationas
a memberof the professionsholdingan advanceddegree,andcameto no conclusionregardingan
alternativefindingthatthepetitionerqualifiedanalienof exceptionalability. Thedirectorfoundthat
thepetitionerhadnotshownthatanexemptionfromtherequirementof ajob offer,andthusof a labor
certification,is in thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.TheAAO first foundthatthepetitionerhad
failedto establishsufficientwork experience,andthenfoundthatthepetitioner'sintendedwork asan
attorneylacksnationalscope.
Onmotion,thepetitionermaintainsthatthedirectorandtheAAO havemischaracterizedhispetition.
Whiletheproceduralhistoryof thismatterhasnotalwaysbeenstraightforward,in thefinalanalysisthe
petitionerhasnotpresentedacoherent,legallysufficientclaimfor thebenefitsought.TheAAO seeks
to explainthis conclusionwith thefollowing discussion.
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart:
(2) Aliens Who Are Membersof the ProfessionsHolding AdvancedDegreesor Aliens of
ExceptionalAbility. -
(A) In General.- Visasshallbemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho are
membersof the professionsholding advanceddegreesor their equivalentor who
becauseof their exceptionalability in thesciences,arts,or business,will substantially
benefitprospectivelythenationaleconomy,culturalor educationalinterests,or welfare
of the UnitedStates,andwhoseservicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or business
aresoughtbyanemployerin theUnitedStates.
(B)WaiverofJobOffer-
(i) . . . theAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorneyGeneraldeemsit to bein
thenationalinterest,waivetherequirementsof subparagraph(A) thatanalien's
servicesin the sciences,arts,professions,or businessbe soughtby anemployer
in theUnitedStates.
Page3
IMMIGRANTCLASSIFICATION
ThepetitionerfiledtheFormI-140petitiononMarch14,2006. Throughoutthisproceeding,therehas
beensomeconfusionasto whetherthepetitionerseeksclassificationasa memberof theprofessions
holdinganadvanceddegree,or asanalienof exceptionalability in thesciences,thearts,or business.
TheU.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(2)includes
thefollowingrelevantdefinitions:
Advanceddegreemeansany United Statesacademicor professionaldegreeor a
foreignequivalentdegreeabovethatof baccalaureate.A UnitedStatesbaccalaureate
degreeor a foreignequivalentdegreefollowedby at leastfive yearsof progressive
experiencein thespecialtyshallbeconsideredtheequivalentof amaster'sdegree.If
a doctoraldegreeis customarilyrequiredby the specialty,the alien must havea
UnitedStatesdoctorateor aforeignequivalentdegree.
Professionmeansoneof the occupationslistedin section101(a)(32)of the Act, as
well asanyoccupationfor which a UnitedStatesbaccalaureatedegreeor its foreign
equivalentis theminimumrequirementfor entryinto theoccupation.
Thedirector,in the June22, 2007denialnotice,stated:"Sincethe beneficiarydoesnot possessan
advanceddegreeor its equivalent,it is yourclaimthathe/shequalifiesfor classificationunderSection
203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct basedon his/herexceptionalability." Thedirector
includedthis languagein error,becausetherecordclearlyestablishesthatthepetitionerqualifiesasa
memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree.Therecordshowsthatthepetitionerholdsa
J.D.degreefrom St.John'sUniversity,NewYork,NewYork, andis a qualifiedattorneybelongingto
the New York StateBar Association.Section101(a)(32)of the Act includes"lawyers"in a list of
professions.
NATIONALINTERESTWAIVER
TheAAO nowturnsto theissueof thejob offerrequirement,andexemptionfromthatrequirementin
thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.TheUSCISregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(m)(4)states:
(i) General. Every petition underthis classificationmustbe accompaniedby an
individual labor certification from the Departmentof Labor,by an applicationfor
ScheduleA designation(if applicable),or by documentationto establishthatthealien
qualifiesfor one of the shortageoccupationsin the Departmentof Labor's Labor
Market Information Pilot Program. To apply for ScheduleA designationor to
establishthatthealien'soccupationiswithin theLaborMarketInformationProgram,
afully executeduncertifiedFormETA-750in duplicatemustaccompanythepetition.
Thejob offerportionof theindividuallaborcertification,ScheduleA application,or
Pilot Programapplicationmust demonstratethat the job requiresa professional
holdinganadvanceddegreeor theequivalentor analienof exceptionalability.
Page4
(ii) Exemptionfrom job offer. The directormay exemptthe requirementof ajob
offer,andthusof alaborcertification,for aliensof exceptionalability in thesciences,
arts,or businessif exemptionwould be in the nationalinterest. To apply for the
exemption,thepetitionermustsubmitFormETA-750B,Statementof Qualifications
of Alien, in duplicate,aswell asevidenceto supportthe claim that suchexemption
wouldbein thenationalinterest.
Part2 of theFormI-140featuresanine-itemchecklistof petitiontypes.Thepetitionercheckeditemd,
"A memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegreeor an alienof exceptionalability (whois
NOT seekingaNationalInterestWaiver)"(emphasisin original). Thepetitionerdidnotcheckitemi,
"An alienapplyingfor a NationalInterestWaiver(who IS a memberof the professionsholdingan
advanceddegreeor analienof exceptionalability)"(emphasisin original).
Thepetitioner'sinitial submissioncontainedno mentionof thenationalinterestwaiver. Instead,the
petitionerstated:"The requirementof laborcertificationis not applicableherebecausethepetitionis
basedonself-employment."No provisionin thestatute,regulations,or caselawautomaticallyexempts
analienfromthejob offerrequirementmerelyby virtueof self-employment.
OnJuly3,2006,thedirectorissuedarequestfor evidence(RFE),instructingthepetitionerto submitan
approvedlaborcertification.Thepetitioner,in response,citedcaselaw fromtheBoardof Alien Labor
CertificationAppealsshowingthataself-employedaliencannotobtainalaborcertificationfor himself,
but this doesnot imply that a self-employedalienmaysimplydisregardthejob offer requirementat
section203(b)(2)(A)of the Act. Thepetitionerhasargued:"Thereis no legislativeintentfor self-
employmentbusiness[to] undergotherequirementof alaborcertification."Nevertheless,thereis also
no legislationthatdeclaresself-employmentto be full andsufficientgroundsfor classificationasan
employment-basedimmigrant.
At thatpoint,thedirectorcouldhavedeniedthepetitionononeor bothof two grounds.An alienmay
not self-petitionasmemberof the professionsholding an advanceddegreeor an alien of exceptional
ability unlessthatalienalsoseeksa nationalinterestwaiver. See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(1).Becausethe
self-petitioningalienin thisproceedingindicatedthathe"is NOT seekinga NationalInterestWaiver,"
thedirectorwouldhavebeenjustifiedin denyingthepetitionforthatreason.
Furthermore,DHS DelegationNumber0150.1(effectiveMarch 1, 2003) establishedthe AAO's
jurisdictionto adjudicateappeals.Underthatauthority,theAAO exercisesappellatejurisdictionover
themattersdescribedat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.l(f)(3)(iii)(asin effectonFebruary28,2003). Subsection(B)
of that regulation,in turn, permittedappealsof denialsof employment-basedpetitionsfiled under
8 C.F.R.§ 204.5,"exceptwhenthedenialof thepetitionis baseduponlackof a certificationby the
Secretaryof Labor." Here,thepetitionerfiledthepetitionwithoutalaborcertificationanddeniedthat
hesoughta waiver. Hadthedirectorchosento denythepetitionfor thatreason,thepetitionerwould
nothavebeenentitledto appealthedecision.
Page5
Forwhateverreason,whetherout of courtesyor error,thedirectorchoseneitherof theaboveoptions.
Instead,the directorassumedthat the petitionersoughta nationalinterestwaiver and proceeded
accordingly.
Neitherthe statutenor the pertinentregulationsdefinethe tema"nationalinterest." Additionally,
Congressdid not providea specificdefinitionof "in the nationalinterest." The Committeeon the
Judiciarymerelynotedin its reportto theSenatethatthecommitteehad"focusedonnationalinterestby
increasingthe numberandproportionof visasfor immigrantswho would benefitthe UnitedStates
economicallyandotherwise.. . ." S.Rep.No.55,10ist Cong.,1stSess.,11(1989).
Supplementaryinformationto regulationsimplementingthe ImmigrationAct of 1990(IMMACT),
publishedat56Fed.Reg.60897,60900(November29.,1991),states:
TheService[now USCIS]believesit appropriateto leavethe applicationof this test
asflexibleaspossible,althoughclearlyanalienseekingto meetthe[nationalinterest]
standardmust make a showing significantly above that necessaryto prove the
"prospectivenationalbenefit" [requiredof aliensseekingto qualify as"exceptional."]
Theburdenwill restwith thealiento establishthatexemptionfrom,or waiverof, the
job offerwill bein thenationalinterest.Eachcaseis to bejudgedonits ownmerits.
MatterofNew YorkStateDept.of Transportation,22 I&N Dec.215(Act. Assoc.Comm'r1998),has
setforth severalfactorswhich mustbe consideredwhenevaluatinga requestfor a nationalinterest
waiver. First, the petitionermust showthat the alien seeksemploymentin an areaof substantial
intrinsicmerit. Next, thepetitionermustshowthat the proposedbenefitwill be nationalin scope.
Finally,thepetitionerseekingthewaivermustestablishthatthealienwill servethenationalinteresttoa
substantiallygreaterdegreethan would an availableU.S. worker having the sameminimum
qualifications.
OnFebruary1,2007,thedirectorissueda secondRFE,instructingthepetitionerto submitevidenceto
meet the three-prongednational interest test published in Matter of New York State Dept. of
Transportation.In response,thepetitionerstated:
[T]he following conceptsand nomenclature1) national interestwaiver, 2) labor
certificateexemptionand 3) the ineligibility for a labor certificationshouldnot be
entangledor commingledin theprocesstoscrutinizethispetition.
. . . Logicallyandconsequently,theissueof nationalinterestwaiveris not applicable
sinceit is a secondaryissuethatcanonlyberaisedaftertheselfemployment/petitioner
passedthethresholdof eligibilityto file alaborcertificationapplication.
Sincetheselfemployment/petitionerhasfailedto passthethresholdof eligibility,there
shouldbe no further proceedingto examinethe petition in light of a nationalinterest
Page6
waiveror alaborcertificateexemptionbecausesaidwaiveror exemptionis inapplicable
in thefirstplace.
By theabovelanguage,thepetitioneressentiallyrefusedto pursuea nationalinterestwaiver,claiming
thatit shouldonlyapplyto aliensforwhomlaborcertificationisarealisticoptionin thefirstplace.The
director,nevertheless,continuedto treatthepetitionasthoughit includedanapplicationfor anational
mterestwaiver.
Bindingprecedentdirectlyaddressestheissueof self-employers'inabilitytoobtainlaborcertification:
The Serviceacknowledgesthat therearecertainoccupationswhereinindividualsare
essentiallyself-employed,andthuswouldhaveno U.S. employerto applyfor a labor
certification. While this factwill begivendueconsiderationin appropriatecases,the
inapplicabilityor unavailabilityof a laborcertificationcannotbe viewedassufficient
causefor a nationalinterestwaiver;thepetitionerstill mustdemonstratethatthe self-
employedalienwill servethenationalinterestto a substantiallygreaterdegreethando
othersin thesamefield.
Matter of New YorkStateDept. of Transportation,22 I&N Dec. at 218 n.5. The samedecision
indicatesthat"Nothingin thelegislativehistorysuggeststhatthenationalinterestwaiverwasintended
simplyasa meansfor employers(or self-petitioningaliens)to avoidthe inconvenienceof the labor
certificationprocess."Id. at 223. Thereis simplynobasisfor thepetitionerto declarethat,asa self-
employedalien,thejob offer requirementdoesnot applyto him andhecanthereforeclaimeligibility
withnofurtherrequirements.
Thepetitionernotedthattwodifferentlawfirmsappliedfor laborcertificationsonhisbehalf,andstated
that "very few employers. . . havethe patienceto wait at leastthreeor moreyearsto get a labor
certificate." Thepetitionerdid not disclosewhetheror not the Departmentof Laborapprovedthose
applications,buthisfiling of anewpetitiononhisownbehalfimpliesthathenolongerintendstowork
for eitherof thoseformer employers. The passageis, nevertheless,instructivebecauseit showsthe
petitioner'sawarenessthatalaw firm mayseeklaborcertificationonbehalfof anattorney.
Thepetitionerthencontinuedwith severalobservationsthatarenotrelevantto thematterathand,such
ashisdaughter'srecitationof thePledgeof Allegianceatschool;theassertionthathis familyrecently
convertedtoChristianityandfearspersecution(butwill notapplyfor asylumbecauseof the"incredibly
high"denialrate);andgeneralassertionsabouthumanrightsandthevalueof smallbusinesses.These
claims(which the petitionerhas repeatedm numeroussuccessivesubmissions)may explainthe
petitioner'smotivesin seekingimmigrationbenefits,buttheydo notsetthepetitionerapartfromother
attorneysto showhiseligibility for thenationalinterestwaiver.
Thepetitionersubmittedcopiesof newspaperarticlesabouttheeconomicbenefitsof immigrant-owned
businesses.Thereexistsno blanketwaiverfor alienbusinessowners,andthesematerialsdonotshow
thatthepetitionerhashada greaterimpactthanothersin thatcategory.Anotherarticleindicatedthat
Page7
manyintendingimmigrantsrequirelegalassistancebut cannotaffordit. Thepetitionerhadpreviously
expressedhis intentionto provide"legal servicessuchasconsultation,representationfor immigrants
andnon-immigrants. . . esp.for thosewhoarelow-incomeminorities."
ThedirectordeniedthepetitiononJune22,2007,statingthatthepetitionerhadnotshownthatlow-cost
legalserviceswould be unavailableto aliensin the New York metropolitanareain thepetitioner's
absence,or thatthepetitioner'slegalworkhashadsignificantimpactor influencein thepracticeof law.
The directoracknowledgedthe petitioner'sassertionthat a self-employedalien shouldnot haveto
providea laborcertification,butthedirectorstatedthatthepetitioner'sopinionsdonotaffectthelawor
howUSCISenforcesit.
The petitionerappealedthat decisionon July 23, 2007,repeatingthe assertionthat,becausehe is
ineligiblefor laborcertification,"thereshouldbeno furtherproceedingto examinethepetitionin light
of nationalinterestwaiveror laborcertificateexemption"(emphasisin original). Thepetitionerstill did
notexplainhowself-employmentexcuseshimfromthestatutoryjob offerrequirement.
Thepetitionerasserted:"It canbetakenasjudicial noticethatthereis shortageof affordablelawyers
who[are]providingaffordablelegalservicestonewandlow incomeimmigrantsin thisregionandthis
country.. . . In 2006,in New York City, theprobonolegalservicework providedcanonlymeet20%
of theneeds"(emphasisin original). MatterofNew YorkStateDept.of Transportationcontainsthe
observationthatpro bonolegalworkby anindividualattorneylacksnationalscope.Id. at217n.3.
Repeatingthe assertionthat former employershavesoughtlabor certificationson his behalf,the
petitionerstatedthathe"couldbeeligiblefor adjustmentaccordingto section245(i)of theINA evenif
youmaydenythisself-employedpetitiononotherground[s]."
Section245(i)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1255(i),states,in pertinentpart:
Adjustmentof Statusfor AliensPhysicallyPresentin theUnited States
(1) Notwithstandingtheprovisionsof subsections(a)and(c)of thissection,analien
physicallypresentin theUnitedStates-
(A)who-
(i) enteredtheUnitedStateswithout inspection; or
(ii) is within oneof theclassesenumeratedin subsection(c) of this
section;
(B) whois thebeneficiary. . .of-
(i) a petitionfor classificationundersection204thatwasfiled with
theAttorneyGeneralonorbeforeApril 30,2001
Page8
* * *
(C) who,in thecaseof a beneficiaryof a petitionfor classification. . .
that was filed afterJanuary14, 1998,is physicallypresentin the
United Stateson the date of the enactmentof the LIFE Act
Amendmentsof 2000[enactedDecember21,2000];
mayapplyto the AttorneyGeneralfor theadjustmentof hisor herstatusto thatof an
alienlawfullyadmittedforpermanentresidence.TheAttomeyGeneralmayacceptsuch
applicationonlyif thealienremitswith suchapplicationasumequaling$1,000asof the
dateof receiptof theapplication. . . .
Section245(i)of the Act permittedcertainalienswho werephysicallypresentin theUnitedStates
on December21,2000,andwho wereotherwiseineligibleto adjusttheir status,suchasalienswho
enteredtheUnitedStateswithoutinspectionor failedtomaintainlawful nonimmigrantstatus,to pay
apenaltyandhavetheir statusadjustedwithouthavingto leavetheUnitedStates.Section245(i)of
theAct expiredasof April 30,2001,exceptfor thosealienswhoare"grandfathered."Theregulatory
definition of a "grandfatheredalien" at 8 C.F.R.§ 245.10(a)(1)(i)included"an alien who is the
beneficiary. . . of . . . [a]n applicationfor laborcertificationundersection212(a)(5)(A)of theAct
thatwasproperlyfiled pursuantto theregulationsof the Secretaryof Laboron or beforeApril 30,
2001,andwhichwasapprovablewhenfiled."
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§245.10(a)(3)states:
Approvablewhenfiled meansthat, as of the date of the filing of the qualifying
immigrantvisapetitionundersection204of theAct . . . , the qualifyingpetition. . .
wasproperlyfiled, meritoriousin fact,andnon-frivolous("frivolous" beingdefined
hereinaspatentlywithout substance).Thisdeterminationwill bemadebasedon the
circumstancesthatexistedatthetimethequalifyingpetitionor applicationwasfiled.
However,section245(i) relief appliesto adjudicationof a Form I-485 adjustmentapplication,not to
adjudicationof the underlyingimmigrantpetition. Specifically,section245(i)(2)(A) of the Act
mandatesthat analien seekingsection245(i)relief be"eligible to receiveanimmigrantvisa." See
INS v. Bagamasbad,429U.S. 24, 25 n. (1976)(percuriam);Leev. U.S.Citizenship& Immigration
Servs.,592F.3d612,614(4thCir.2010)(describingthelegislativehistoryof 8U.S.C.§ 1255(i)).
Thelaw doesnot requiretheapprovalof everygrandfatheredimmigrantpetition,nordoesit exempt
grandfatheredaliensfrom thepetitionprocessandallow themto proceeddirectlyto theadjustment
phase.In orderto seekrelief undersection245(i) of theAct basedon classificationundersection
204 of the Act, the alien in this casemust first have an approvedimmigrant petition and an
approvablewhen filed immigrantpetition or laborcertificationfiled on or beforeApril 30, 2001.
Thepetitioner'sclaimto bea grandfatheredalienundersection245(i)of theAct hasno effectonthe
adjudicationof anypetitionfiled on hisbehalf;statusasa grandfatheredalienis relevantonly at the
adjustmentstage,whichthepetitionerhasnotyetreached.
Page9
TheAAO dismissedthepetitioner'sappealonDecember8,2009. TheAAO did notdiscussanyof the
aboveissues.Instead,theAAO stated:
Thedirectordeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto demonstratethathepossessedthe
requisiteexperiencefor thepositionbeginningontheprioritydate.
On appeal,the petitionermerelystatedthat he had the requisiteexperiencefor the
position.
Thediscussionin theDecember8, 2009dismissalordermischaracterizedboththegroundfor denial,
andthe petitioner'sresponseon appeal. The AAO, in that notice,failed to providean accurate
summaryordiscussionof theissuesin dispute.
OnDecember14,2009,thepetitionerstated:"a glaringerrorhasbeenmadeconcerningthebasicfacts.
. . . Therefore,I treatyour decisiondatedDecember8, 2009asanRFE." Thepetitionercomplained
thattheAAO didnotissueanRFEwhiletheappealwaspending.WhiletheAAO reservestherightto
requestadditionalevidencewhencircumstanceswarrant,thereis no requirementthattheAAO must
routinelyissuesuchnotices.Rather,thepresumptionis thattherecordoughtto becompletewhenthe
AAO receivesthe appeal(hencethe informationincludedon the Form I-290B Noticeof Appeal,
advisingthepetitionerof afinalopportunitytosupplementtherecordwith abriefand/orevidence).
Thepetitionersubmittedcopiesof numerousdocuments,showingthathe is a qualifiedattorneywho
hasparticipatedin severalcases.Thepetitionerdid not,atthattime,claimeligibility for thenational
interestwaiver. Instead,heintendedhissubmissionto establishhisexperienceasanattomey,because
theAAO raisedtheissueof experiencein itsDecember8,2009decision.
On February12, 2010,the AAO reopenedthe petitionon its own motion andagaindismissedthe
petitioner'sappeal.In thedecision,theAAO stated:"TheAAO findsthatthebeneficiarydoesprovide
affordable legal services to low income immigrants,but that a waiver of the labor certification
[requirement]wouldnotbenefitthecountrytoascopeof nationalproportions."
OnFebruary24,2010,thepetitionerfiled a motionto reconsidertheAAO's decision.Thepetitioner
arguesthathequalifiesfor classificationundersection203(b)(2)of the Act. At this time,the AAO
acknowledgesthatthepetitioneris clearlya memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree.
Nevertheless,the plain languageof the statuteindicatesthat suchaliensaresubjectto thejob offer
requirement(includinglaborcertification)unlessit isin thenationalinteresttowaivethatrequirement.
Thepetitioneronceagainraises"thepeculiarfactthat. . . in thiscasethepetitioner/employerandthe
beneficiary/employeeis thesameperson"(emphasisin original). Thepetitionerarguesatlengththatit
would serve"little practicalpurpose"to hold him to thelaborcertificationrequirement.Onceagain,the
petitionercitesnostatute,regulation,or caselawto showthataselfemployedalienis exemptfromthe
statutoryjob offerrequirement.USCISandits employeesmustactwithin theconfinesof thelaw,and
Page10
USCIShasno authoritysimplyto disregardthejob offer requirementmerelybecausethepetitioneris
self-employed.Thelaw appliesto thepetitioner,notwithstandinghisrepeated,emphaticdisagreement
with that law. Congresshas passedno statute,and USCIS has publishedno regulation,that
automaticallyentitlesaself-employedaliento animmigrantvisa. Therethediscussionends.
An aliencannotself-petitionundersection203(b)(2)of theAct unlessthealienseeksanationalinterest
waiver. Throughoutthisproceeding,thepetitionerhasoccasionallylistedthebenefitsof hiswork,but
hasrepeatedlyandconsistentlydeniedthatheseeksthewaiver. Therefore,thereis noviablebasisfor
the petition. The AAO, in this latestdecision,hasendeavoredto clearup someof the confusion
resultingfromprior adjudicativeerrors.In thefinalanalysis,aself-petitioningalienseeksclassification
asa memberof theprofessionsholdingan advanceddegree,withouteithera laborcertificationor a
nationalinterestwaiver. Thebenefitthatthepetitionerseekssimplydoesnot existundercurrentlaw.
TheAAO must,therefore,affirm thedenialof thepetition.
As is clearfrom a plain readingof the statute,it wasnot the intentof Congressthat everyperson
qualifiedto engagein aprofessionin theUnitedStatesshouldbeexemptfromtherequirementof ajob
offer basedon nationalinterest. Likewise,it doesnot appearto havebeentheintentof Congressto
grantnationalinterestwaiversonthebasisof theoverallimportanceof a givenprofession,ratherthan
on themeritsof the individualalien. On thebasisof the evidencesubmitted,the petitionerhasnot
establishedthata waiverof the requirementof anapprovedlaborcertificationwill be in thenational
interestof theUnitedStates.
Theburdenof proof in theseproceedingsrestssolelywith the petitioner. Section291 of the Act.,
8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.