dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Linguistics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenshiv and Immigration Services 
- 
Office of Adrninrstrative Appeals 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 08 002 52607 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(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. 
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. 5 103.5 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. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
F. Grissom sf@-- Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas 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. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner describes herself as a "linguist orientalist" with expertise in "PersianFarsi (Iranian) language1 
history of Middle East countrieshistory of Iran." At the time she filed the petition, the petitioner was a 
visiting professor at the University of Montana, Missoula. The petitioner has since moved to New 
York, but the record does not reveal her current employment (if any). The petitioner asserts that an 
exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest 
of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not established that an exemption 
from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief in which she emphasizes the importance of her skills. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -- 
(A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer. 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 5 5, 10 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
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 from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the national interest. Each 
case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Commr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, 
it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must 
be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver 
must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would 
an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the fuhue, serve the national interest 
cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used 
here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. 
We also note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree 
of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offerllabor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot 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 petition on July 27, 2007. The petitioner's initial submission appears to have 
consisted only of the Form 1-140 petition and Form ETA 750B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien. 
The latter form indicated that the petitioner had worked as a "Professor-Iranist" (sic) teaching "Persian 
Language and History" and "Middle East Languages and History" at Kutaisi State University in the 
Republic of Georgia from 1991 to 2004, and as a "Professor-Linguist" teaching "Persian Language 
Classes" at the University of Montana fiom August 2004 to the filing date. 
On January 11, 2008, the director instructed the petitioner to submit additional evidence to meet the 
guidelines set forth in Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation. In response, the petitioner 
stated that her "knowledge and experience as the Iranian, Georgian and U.S. relationship expert, as well 
as Arabic culture and history expert" are important to the United States, and that she hopes "to teach 
Iranian language to American military servicemen or serv[ic]ewomen." These assertions address the 
intrinsic merit of her occupation rather than her own standing or contributions in the field. 
The petitioner submitted five witness letters. -1 Rector of the Tbilisi Institute 
of Asia and Africa and Dean of Oriental Studies at Kutaisi State University, stated: 
I have been consistently impressed by both [the petitioner's] attitude towards her work 
as a dedicated teacher of the University and as a researcher and scholar conducting 
political-social, cultural issues that [are] taking place in Middle-Eastem count[r]ies['] 
modem life. 
. . . [The petitioner] is [a] serious, extremely competent scholar and professional whose 
analys[es] and researches on Middle Eastern political and cultural, religious issues [are] 
based on conducting of historical sources and reflected in many articles and publications 
dedicated Iran's foreign policy, [and] Georgia's and Iran's historical relationships. 
. . . [The petitioner] has been . . . a visiting professor to The University of Montana [for 
the] last three academic years (2004-2007). 
During these years, students equally praise . . . her excellence in teaching skills and 
efficiency, and MCLL FEC (Department of Modem and Classical Languages and 
Literatures Faculty Evaluation Committee) recognizes [the petitioner's] excellent 
professional record for these years. 
The remainin four letters are all from employees of the University of Montana. Foreign Student 
stated: 
I first met [the petitioner] almost four years ago, as a student in her Persian Language 
class at The University of Montana. . . . 
I had two semesters in Persian language under [the petitioner's] instruction. . . . She was 
always trying to find new ways to improve ow language skills and retention. 
During the 2005-2006 school year I studied in Tbilisi, Georgia. For a couple of months 
prior to my departure, [the petitioner] made time in her schedule to give me lessons in 
basic Georgian. When I arrived in Tbilisi, my instructors were impressed that I was 
already able to read and write the Georgian alphabet. Thanks to [the petitioner], I was 
able to travel much more easily in her country. 
. . . In my opinion, [the petitioner] would be an asset to any institution she worked with, 
but more importantly, she is an asset to her students. 
I am pleased to write this letter for . . . my colleague in post-Soviet studies and office- 
partner. . . . For the duration of our three semester collaboration, circa 2006-2007, I 
found [the petitioner] to be a consistently serious and up-beat scholar. . . . 
In addition to translating (from Farsi into Georgian) the poetic works of Sho'la, Mosib- 
beg and Madhush Undiladzes . . . , [the petitioner] has also published and presented 
broadly . . . not only [in] her native Georgia, but also the USA and Iran. Accordingly, 
when asked to create a panel on the post-Soviet Caucasus for the annual (2007) Central 
Asia Seminar) . . . , I immediately invited [the petitioner] to participate as an expert on 
the little-known but essential Georgian element in the creation of Safavid Iran, of which 
she is one of the world's few experts. 
Arabic Language and Culture ~ecturer stated: 
[The petitioner] has always conducted herself in a professional and scholarly manner. 
[The petitioner] is a gifted professor with a very personable, giving attitude and she truly 
believes and is dedicated to global education and understanding. . . . 
Her presence with us provided a very valuable resource . . . in the areas of Persian 
Language, History and Geography of Iran, History of the Middle East and Islamic 
Civilization. 
[The petitioner] very graciously helped our Russian program in the spring of 2006 when 
we experienced a bit of a crisis. We hired an adjunct [professor] to teach three language 
courses. . . . The adjunct was struggling for numerous reasons. . . . In desperation, I 
asked [the petitioner] if she would be willing to provide the second-year students with a 
weekly "Conversation Day." Teaching Russian was not in [the petitioner's] contract. 
Her help was invaluable. She lifted the students' moral[e] . . . [and] also gave our 
adjunct both some time to catch up on grading and the peace of mind that the students 
were being truly challenged in their conversation skills. 
The letters discussed above show that the petitioner's colleagues hold her in high regard, both in terms 
of her subject matter expertise and her professional conduct. The letters, however, do not establish the 
national scope of the petitioner's work. The petitioner's classroom instruction and faculty interactions 
are inherently local rather than national in scope. Some witnesses have referred to the petitioner's 
publications, but the record does not contain documentation (either the publications themselves or proof 
of their existence) to support these assertions. 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 Craft of California, 14 I&N 
Dec. 190 (Regl. Commr. 1972)). 
Furthermore, it cannot suffice to demonstrate that the petitioner is a skilled professional. The petitioner 
does not only seek classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. She also 
seeks an additional benefit in the form of an exemption from the job offer requirement that normally 
applies to professionals in her field. To qualify for this added benefit, she must do more than show that 
she is competent and respected by her peers. She must show that it is in the national interest to waive 
the job offer requirement that normally applies to the classification she has chosen to seek. 
The director denied the petition on August 29, 2008, stating that the petitioner failed to show that her 
"contributions to the field have influenced that field on such a scale that the petitioner merits the extra 
benefit of a national interest waiver." The director stated that the witnesses' "general statements cannot 
suffice" to establish eligibility. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: 
It is unknown why the Service concluded that I had tried just rest on field's importance 
[sic]. Every submitted recommendation letter by independent experts had suggested that 
my qualification, knowledge and activities as scientist [sic] is not an ordinary case. 
Nobody tried to analyze submitted evidences and write the competent decision. 
The record contains no letters from "independent experts." The witnesses have all worked with the 
petitioner, either at the University of Tbilisi or at the University of Montana. While the letters are very 
positive, and portray the petitioner as a helpful and knowledgeable scholar, the letters give no indication 
of the nature or extent of the petitioner's scholarly contributions to her field. 
The petitioner asserts that "there is very shortage" (sic) of "experts in Iranian, Arabic and Georgian 
culture and history." Such shortages are not grounds for a waiver, because the labor certification 
process exists to address such shortages. See Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation at 21 8. 
Furthermore, this argument only addresses the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's occupation; it does not 
provide any comparison between the petitioner and other qualified workers in her field. There exists no 
blanket waiver for "experts in Iranian, Arabic and Georgian culture and history," and therefore the 
petitioner's expertise in those areas does not guarantee her a national interest waiver. 
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. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This decision 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.