dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Linguistics

identifling data deleted to 
prevent clearly unw- 
hnasimofpaollalpivacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
PUBLIC COPY 
FILE: Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER Date: 
 0 Ip Zoot 
EAC 05 114 52960 
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. 9 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. 
V 
5 ~obert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The matter 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. 4 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner 
describes her occupation as "philologist, linguist, teacher, researcher." 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. 
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 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. 55, 
1 Olst Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), published at 
56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29,1991), states: 
- Page 3 
The Service [now Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] 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. 215 (Comm. 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 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. 
The petitioner's initial submission consisted entirely of copies of diplomas and other documents that indicate 
the petitioner is a qualified language teacher. These materials serve to show that the petitioner qualifies for 
the underlying immigrant classification, but the petitioner does not qualify for a waiver based only on her 
career choice. It is the position of CIS to grant national interest waivers on a case by case basis, rather than to 
establish blanket waivers for entire fields of specialization. Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation 
at 217. 
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 states: 
[Tlhe main theme of my research activity was the study of the connections and analogies 
between various cultural heritages. Both American Indians and Georgians are Ancient 
societies, but in History for known reasons it was impossible to establish cultural and trade 
relationship between above mentioned two civilizations. It was impossible to exchange any 
kind of information but in spite of such obvious restricted terms, it is observed some 
repeatability between for instance etymological or musical construction and content of 
heritages. 
Natural insulate is very convenient medium for study some kind of influence of out of 
civilization, and in the long run it is very important method for study of existence of 
extraterrestrial civilizations at all (The same allegation is applied to explain strange similarity 
between forms and methods of construction of Egypt's pyramids and south America's 
pyramids). 
I think it is very important for American Society to develop the study of above-mentioned 
cultural ties and similarities. 
Additionally, I am a three-languages-speaking person that is very important in Linguistics. 
Hundreds of thousands of Russian-speaking immigrants and tens of thousands are now living 
at three-state area (NY, NJ, CT). According to official data, given by Georgian Consulate in 
Washington DC, about sixty thousands Georgian-speaking residents are living now in U.S.A. 
Every of them are needed native-language-speaking bi- and trilingual teachers too. 
Bilingual and particularly trilingual teachers are in profound deficit at tri-state area. I think I 
am able to provide such service in both public and private schools. I already serve as bona 
fide teacher at Georgian Church Sunday school. 
The petitioner's claim to serve the national interest relies quite heavily on her claimed linguistic skills and her 
ability to teach English to native Georgian and Russian speakers. In this context, we cannot ignore the 
numerous grammatical errors in the petitioner's statement, partially reproduced above. The frequency of 
these errors is, indisputably, relevant when judging the extent of the petitioner's mastery of English. 
In denying the petition, the director acknowledged the intrinsic merit of "cultural studies" and language 
teaching, but found that the petitioner's stated goal of teaching English in the "tri-state area" is inherently 
local rather than national in scope. This is consistent with Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 
in which classroom teachers were included among examples of meritorious occupations for which an 
individual's impact "would be so attenuated at the national level as to be negligible." Id. at 217, n.3. 
With regard to the claimed local shortage of trilingual teachers, the director observed: "given that the labor 
certification process was designed to address the issue of labor shortages, a shortage of qualified workers is an 
argument for obtaining rather than waiving the labor certification process. Further, specific skills or training, 
which are truly requirements for the job, can be articulated on an application for labor certification." These 
findings are also consistent with Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation at 21 8 and 221. 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "My research area is absulutelly [sic] unique. Tri-language teachers are 
profound deficit [sic] in the U.S.A." The director had already advised the petitioner that a local shortage of 
trilingual teachers is, by itself, a favorable factor in seeking (rather than waiving) a labor certification. 
Repeating the same claim about the alleged shortage, therefore, cannot overcome this basis for denial. 
With regard to the petitioner's "research area," teaching English to speakers of other languages does not 
constitute "research." Therefore, the petitioner must be referring, here, not to her language teaching work, but 
rather to a hypothesis presented in her earlier statement. While the meaning of that prior statement is not 
always easy to discern, it appears that the petitioner has claimed that cultural similarities between ancient 
Georgians and Native Americans can be explained only by invoking the "existence of extraterrestrial 
civilizations" which visited the Earth and planted similar seeds of culture both in Eastern Europe and in North 
America, possibly at some prehistoric time. 
The petitioner submits no evidence to show the extent of her research (as opposed to speculation) in this 
regard, nor has she shown that she has submitted her findings for peer review. The hypothesis that space 
aliens are responsible for perceived similarities between unrelated ancient civilizations would, if proven, have 
revolutionary implications in a great many fields of study. As an unsupported and untested assertion, 
however, the hypothesis remains little more than unsubstantiated conjecture. 
As for the assertion on appeal that this "research area is [absolutely] unique," the petitioner has already 
acknowledged that "[tlhe same allegation is applied to explain strange similarity between forms and methods 
of construction of Egypt's pyramids and south America's pyramids." The idea that extraterrestrial beings 
have intervened in ancient cultures can be found in a number of books, most notably Chariots of the Gods? by 
Erich von Daniken (published 1968). Such efforts, to date, have at times captured the public imagination but 
have yet to win significant acceptance among mainstream researchers. 
Even if the petitioner's suggestions regarding parallels in American Indian and Georgian culture are "unique," 
as the petitioner claims, uniqueness is not, in and of itself, a qualifying factor for a national interest waiver. 
The fact that only one person performs a certain bction or researches a certain subject does not 
automatically demonstrate that the function or research is, in fact, in the national interest. 
The petitioner's waiver claim rests on two grounds: (1) her "unique" comparative studies of two separate 
cultures, and her inference that perceived parallels between these two cultures are evidence of contact with 
"extraterrestrial civilizations"; and (2) a claimed shortage of Russian/Georgian/English teachers in the New 
York/New Jersey/Connecticut area. For reasons explained above, neither of these grounds demonstrates that 
the petitioner's continued presence in the United States serves the national interest to a degree that would 
justify a waiver of the job offedlabor certification that, by law, normally applies to the immigrant 
classification that the petitioner has chosen to seek. 
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 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.