dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mathematical Physics

(b)(6)
·' ' . 
. .. 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave:, N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship· 
and Immigration 
Services 
·DATE: 
MAR 0 8 2013 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER . 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Putsuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative ApP,eals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have bee.n returned to the office that ori~lly 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 AAO inappropriately applied the law J reaching its decision,· or you have. additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file k motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice clfAppeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
I 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103l5(a)(l)(i) requires·any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or ~eopen. : 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Wl\'W.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
·' 
Page2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Ap~eals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. ·I 
1 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b)(21) of the Immigratio~ and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the pro:fessions }loltiino l:m ~tivlm~Pil nP.urP.P. ThP. 
petitioner seeks employment as a research assistant professor at 
Houston. The petitioner's recent·work has involved thJ Pade approximant, a mathematical function 
used to extrapolate beyond a known data set. The pbtitioner 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 fo11j
1 
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 ofthe United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel and copies of pr~viously submitted materials. 
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 inlmigrants 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, cultufal or educational interests, or welfare 
of the Uriited States, and whose services in the sbiences, 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 o!f subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or bhsiness 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 1the 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 I the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definitio'n of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the cbmmittee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for inlnligrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cbng., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
(b)(6)Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, published at 
56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29, 1991), states~ · · 
·. The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and ImmiJation Service~ (USCIS)]' believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test J flexible as possible, although clearly 
an alien seeking to meet the [national intere~t] standard must inake a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove I 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 wai:~er ot: the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each 
case is to be judged on its own merits.· · 
. I . 
In reNew York State Dept: of Transportation (NYSD01), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 
1998), has set forth several factors which must be consid1ered when evaluating a request for a national 
. I 
interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show that the alfen seeks employment in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit. Next, the petitioner must show that thci proposed benefit will be national in ·scope. 
Finally, the petitioner establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than would an available United States worker havu!tg the same minimum qualifications. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospecti~Jnational benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future blmefit to the national interest. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, ~erve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The intention beruhd the term ''prospective" is to require future 
contnbutions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the ~ntry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements; and whose benefit to the national interest wbuld thus be entirely speculative. 
. . I c 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as . "a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encounterett" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to t*e job offer/labor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of excej>tional ability, or J a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver ljust by demonstratmg a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
I . 
The petitioner filed the. Form I-140 petition on Januaiy 23, 2012. In an introductory statement, 
counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] has the capacity for making suostantial contributions to the U.S. by 
and through. his expertise and skills in the I filed [sic] of Computational and 
Mathematical Physics, particularly, nonlinear quantum dynamics and data analysis, 
the latter having applications in submarine detebtion, gravitational waves detection, . 
water leaks detection in urban distribution net~orks, early detection of structural 
faults ,in mechanical systems, e.g., (military) 1Jhelicopter. engines. and oil drilling 
equipment. ... 
(b)(6)
Page4 
Beneficiary is an· internally [sic] recognized exP,ert in the filed [sic] of Mathematical 
Physics for his expertise and skills in data ~alysis, and in particular in · Pade 
Approximants of Z-transforms of data analysiJ, and nonlinear quantum dynamics .. 
Beneficiary is currently working as Research Prdfessor at 
l!eneficiary has 'been working on Pade Approxlants and their applications for more 
thart 10 years. Since 2007, he has been workin~ on their application to data analysis 
problems, obtaining new and fundamental results, such as the universal properties of 
purse [sic] noise Pade Approximants and lately the characteristic way a deterministic 
signal perturbs them. Beneficiary has, also beJn ·working in the field of nonlinear 
quantum dynamics for the last 25 years, both with experimental and theoretical 
groups, concentrating in particular .on the vario~ regimes of interaction .of Rydberg 
atoms (both Hydrogen and Alkali Metal ones)l with microwaves. He is currently 
researching different schemes to accelerate de-e~.citation of anti-hydrogen atoms .... 
[M]easurement of the ground state energy of these atoms is very important in 
fundamental physics. 
Recently, Beneficiary made a breakthrough in the filed [sic] of data analysis by · I . 
devising a new method to detect weak signals in highly noisy environments by 
their effect on these saine properties of the nJise itself. The essential applications 
of his new method of detecting signals in heavy doise surroundings include: 
• . Detection of the breaking of helicopters['] shafts that emit specific vibrations 
before breaking .... 
• Interest to the --------'-
• A . ~ sub award . for the detection of 
Gravitational Waves emitted by Black Holes ~ocated at the center of galaxies. 
• · A sub award grant again 
for the detection ofGravit.ational Waves. I 
• · Future applications to reduce the number of false positive and/or false negative 
·[results] in Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy for breast and brain cancer. 
CoW18el stat~ that the petitioner qualifies fur the wai~er becaus; his H-1 B nonimmigrant status 
"precluded [him] from fully participating in the projects for the US Department of Defense," and 
because his "qualifications ... cannot be articulated in tHe labor certification process." . 
I . 
The petitioner-submitted partial copies of 12 joumalckicles published between. 1988 and 2011. 
Counsel stated that these articles represent important cdntributions to the petitioner's field, but the 
petitioner did not submit documentary evidence (such J citation data) to establish the impact of.his 
published work. Instead, the petitioner. submitted sev~al witness letters. The AAO will discuss 
representative examples ofthe letters below. I , 
(b)(6)
Page5 
described. himself as 'jan internationally renowned Mathematical 
Physicist with ·over one hundred and twenty referrea publications and over fourteen hundred 
citations referenced in the Science Citation Index." Thd petitioner's submission of this letter reflects · 
awareness that heavy citation can be a measure of thb impact of a re;earcher's published work .. 
, Nevertheless, the petitioner submitted no information rekarding the citation of his own wor.k. 
stated: 
I have been collaborating with [the petitioner] for eleven years, starting in the year 
2000. At the time, we were working on thd design of semi-conductors hetero­
structures. Rapidly, we moved to the field of dat~ analysis corrupted by heavy noise. 
Recently, [the petitioner] m.ade a breakthrough in the field of Data Analysis. Any 
expert of the field will tell that it is impossible 1to detect a random signal below the 
noise level. The extremely original approach of [the petitioner] is based on the idea 
to focus on the noise rather than on the signal dnd look how the signal perturbs the 
noise universal properties in the complex planet When a change is detected in the 
noise distribution this indicates the presence rlf a signal that can be furthermore 
isolated and studied. ·The sensitivity of this entirbly new approach is at least ten times 
better than any traditional method. . . . ·I 
[The petitioner] is the cornerstone of three projects we have for the moment/ [sic] 
for helicopter shaft bteakdown prevention . 
. ·I hope to have him collaborating ~ith the Navy 'l soon as he will get US residency. 
His method will have direct applications to nucleL Submarine Detection. 
In a separate letter, . . elaborated on two projels with national defense implications: 
Browsing through professionai iiterature, . ·a Jientist working for 
got intrigued by reading about the extrbely powerful results presented in 
one of [the petitioner's] publications. He was $o interested about his work that. he 
immediately offered a research contract to carry on the 
research pioneered by [the petitioner]. The ptoblem they have at J 
is the detection on [sic] an early stage! of eventual catastrophic failure of 
helicopter rotor blade .... The experts at 1 · knew that traditional 
Digital Signal Processing are [sic] of very little Help for their problem, and they hope 
·that the.innovative approach to noise filtering presented in [the petitioner's] paper 
will help them achieve crucial-progress in solving this problem 
. 1 Sic. . apparently meant to refer to the 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
The second example pertains to nuclear submarine navigation and target detection 
technology. · 
... The superiortechnique he proposes is able to ·work for both active and passive 
detection. Moreover, coherent detection of signals recorded in multistatic 
configurations will automatically guaranteb · several orders of magnitude 
improvements in detection capabilities. This acdomplishment, never achieved before, 
would be possible only by using a matrix exterlsion of [the petitioner's] research. I 
don't see any way in which the results promisclt in our proposal could be delivered 
without [the petitioner's] contribution. · I . . 
Professor stated: 
I have known [the petitioner] for more than tJ,enty-five years now, since when he 
was a student under my guidance in the 
and I have seen ·him constantly gfow in ;~mpetence and academic 
recognition during all these years. 
[The petitioner] completed his laurea thesis (the equivalent of a master) in the 
eighties, with a theoretical work on the explanJtion of the puzzling results (for the 
' . I 
time) of the experiments on microwave excited hvdrogen atoms that had just been 
performed by the research group ~f. _ n the U.S. In this 
work, he collaborated tightly with me to test I and run a numerical code for the 
simulation of such physical system, that was at the forefront of research. The results 
I 
of this work lead [sic] to important publications that had vast resonance in the field of 
atomic physics, since they frrst explained the d~amical phenomena at work in these 
systems. 
Soon after com leting his laurea's thesis with m~, [the petitioner] went on to graduate 
school in to work directly with . .. to complete a 
co.mprehensive on the application of dynamical techniques to atomic physics 
(namely, the widespread use of Husimi transfotms). · The importance of this work 
cannot be overstated: it gives means ofvisualizink the quantum distnbutions in such a 
way that they can be compared with the classicai distributions. [The petitioner]. used 
these tools to visualize the new phenomena that ~e had discovered in atomic physics: 
dynamical quantum localization, strong field ionfation, Stabilization, and so on. 
whom the petitioner 
listed as a reference on his curriculum vitae, stated: · 
In my thirty-year long experience with talented pleople; [the petitioner] stands out: He · 
shows remarkable gifts in research on the theory of nonlinear dynamical systems and 
its application to complex systems. Nonlinear dwamical theory ... is directly related . . . I 
(b)(6)Page7 
to nearly all high-tech sectors which have a toP. priority in the US national interest. 
Any advance in nonlinear theory will surely b~ing a major impact on science and 
technology . 
. . . In his [doctoral] thesis, [the petitioner] solved the key problem of atomic physics 
and nonlinear mechanics of the time, namely thb quantum mechanical manifestation 
of chaotic dynamics in a real, experimentally acJessible atom, namely hydrogen. His 
I 
work opened the floodgates to a new field, namely chaos in atomic physics, and many 
researchers in this field owe a great debt to [the ~etitioner's] pioneering work. . 
rovid~ lengthy, technical descriptions oftJe petitioner's work, :.Ud asserted: ''To make 
I 
all these substantive contributions in such a short period of time is far beyond the capability of 
typical young researchers at comparable stages oftheir·dareers." · - . -
I 
stated: 
We have met at several cOnferences, and hate had many discussions and very 
interesting exchanges of opinions about a new rhethod for filtering noisy time series 
with signals from damped oscillators .... 
In this method a very ingenious use is made of a phenomenon in Pade approximation 
that is known under the name of "Proissart doublets .... This new approach is 
extremely interesting in my opinion and also ve~ promising to become an attractive 
alternative in future to the presently dominant tools from harmonic analysis in the 
area of filtering techniques. Of course, the resbarch is still in its early days, but if 
things turn out positive, then it will have a great ftnpact in the development of spectral 
·analysis of highly noisy time series. 
The director issued a request for evidence on May p, 2012. The director acknowledged the 
petitioner's submission of witness letters, but observed that the witnesses tended to describe the 
petitioner's work in terms of its potential rather than its !proven impact. The director stated: ''While 
some witnesses indicate that you have useful ideas in yorr field, the effectiveness of your method(s) 
has not been strongly established. The suggestion that such methods might, possibly at some future 
date,· be beneficial is not sufficient to establish eligi~ility for a national interes~ waiver. "l The 
director requested documentary 
evidence of the petitionJ's past impact and influence on his field. 
In response to the request, for evidence, the petitioner shbmitted partial~ copies of various scholarly 
articles which, according to counsel, "demonstrate th~ proven effectiveness and benefits of the 
applications of Pade Approximant method" in terms ofjdistinguishing data from noise. The issue, 
however, is not whether the Pade approximant is a useful mathematical tool. That issue speaks to 
. substantial intrinsic merit, which the director has not qubstioned in this proceeding. There exists no 
blanket waiver for physicists and/or mathematicians J..ho are familiar with the use of the Pade 
approximant in distinguishing signal from noise. The petitioner did not create or define the Pade 
. -- I 
(b)(6)
Page8 
approximant, and therefore general discussions of its utility say nothing about the petitioner's 
contributions to his field. The submitted article excerpts do not mention the petitioner's work, and 
therefore they do not establish the significance or impact of the petitioner's past work in his field. 
Rather than provide documentary evidence of his past lpact or influence on his field, the petitioner 
I 
submitted additional witness letters. 
stated: 
[The petitioner] is a key member ofthe group hJaded by which ... 
has been developing a new filtering technique iJ the data analysis of weak signals in 
heavy noise. [The petitioner] conceived the fnost innovative aspect of this new 
technique, consisting in inverting the traditional !prospective [sic] and considering the 
signal as a perturbation of the noise .... Preliminary results indicate that this new 
. technique can substantially increase detection prbbabilities. Extensive statistical tests 
are under way to quantify the advantage on [sic] traditional methods. :. . · 
As evidenced from my continued financial supbort of it, I believe that the research 
[the petitioner] is conducting in data analysis wiil result in. solid advantages, not only 
to my field of research but also in practical applications wherever weak signals have 
to be extracted from overwhelming noise, as for ~xample in medical imaging.· 
Like the initial letters, letter does not indicJte thanhe petitioner's work has already had 
demonstrable impact on the field. Rath~, the letter indibates that testing is underway to confirm the 
effectiveness of the petitioner's inethods. . I • . .· 
Another of the petitioner's collaborators discussed thej research team's' ongoing work in terms of 
what the group hopes or expects to achieve. 
stated: 
[The petitioner's] background enabled him to !create an application that separates 
signal from noise in certain astrophysics applica~ions (namely, detecting gravitati~nal 
waves). My collaboration with [the petitioner] aims to refine this method into a much 
more accurate way of reading and interpreting !the structure of biological rhythnls, 
such as those that are recorded in electroencephalograms (EEGs). These recordings 
are used to diagnose epilepsy and a host of abnotmalities in children, but the data are 
I 
difficult to interpret. [The petitioner:s] approach promise~ to discern the signal in a 
more sensitive and accurate way. It is an fugenious ·application of an elegant 
mathematical theorem developed in the 20
1
h. cedtury in France, which has not been 
app)ied to biological data befure, . . . I 
Based on our preliminary results, we are current;ly working on a grant application to 
the I sincerely believe that a successful de~elopment of this method could shed 
considerable light on several puzzling phenomeda in neuroscience, and I expect that 
(b)(6)
Page9 
the work will have a major impact on both scientific research and on public health 
care in the United States. 
In sum, [the petitioner's] work promises to aovance our research enterprise, our 
public health, and our biotechnology industry. 
_ A whp first collaborated with the petitioner under 
in 1997, provided an overview ofthe petitioner's past work. stated that 
_ the petitioner's ''results in Chaos Theory as applied to ~tomic physics represent a major advance in 
this field, as demonstrated by the number of prestigiouk publications, conference presentations and 
citations .... [H]is work in atomic physics is widely i.ecognized by the peers in his group." The 
petitioner has not documented the citation of his work ot provided objective evidence of this claimed 
widespread recognition. Going on record without suppdrting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden .of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998} (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N.Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). - l discussed other potenti~l applications ofthe petitioner's work, while 
making it clear that significant technical hurdles remain pefore the applications are viable. 
. . . I . --- - an associate professor at the knew the petitioner during 
the petitioner's studies there. stated that jthe petitioner's more recent "findings and 
procedures ... have been indeed widely appreciated, and they also look very promising for further 
applications to physically fundamental questions, wherJ high noise level prevents simple and direct 
analysis of experimental data." Like other w1tness~s, ·stated that this research ts 
unfinished and that further progress depend~ upon the p~titioner's continued involvement. 
I - --
One of collaborators, Professor _ 
1 
_ director of the 
_ has "known [the petitioner] ~ince 1989." Prof. , stated that the 
petitioner's research "on control and transport in classical and quantum nonlinear dynamics ... is 
very promising." · 
The director, in the request for evidence, had specifie<;l that the petitioner must establish "specific 
prior achievement with some degree of influence on tlie field as a whole," and that the promise of 
future benefit is not, by itself: sufficient to warrant thcl waiver. Nevertheless, the second group of 
witness letters once· again focused on the potential future benefits that may- result from the 
petitioner's ongoing research. 
The director denied the petition on October 29, 2012, s~ating: ''The fact that th~ petitioner-may play 
an important role in Pade Approximants and their applications is insufficient to establish eligibility 
for a job offer waiver based on national interest." Theldirector acknowledged the intrinsic merit of 
the petitioner's occupation, and the national scope of 'he benefit arising from the work, but found 
that the petitioner had not met the third prong of the NYSDOT national interest test. 
On appeal, counsel states: . 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
In the past 30 years, [the petition.er] has made significant ;md substantial contributions 
to data analysis· and nonlinear quantum dynamics, which are applied· in submarine 
detection, c:;ancer. detection, gravitational wave/
1 
detection, water leak detection in 
urban distribution networks, early detection of structural faults in mechanical 
systems, e.g. helicopter engines and oil drilling equipment, directly benefitting the 
national defense, health, space program and energy industries. · 
The 
record does not show that the petitioner's fmdinks "are applied" in the ways listed above. 
Rather, the record indicates that testing is underway tb determine whether or not the petitioner's 
I 
work will lead to· improvements in those areas. The petitioner need not already have achieved every 
one of his goals in order to qualify for the waiver, but ~e must establish .a past history of influential 
accomplishment to ju~tify the prediction that he willachieve those goals. 
Counsel quotes several of the witness letters at len~h, stating that the witnesses "specifically 
address[ ed] why the Petitioner's employment would benefit the national interest to a substantially 
greater degree than a similarly qualified U.S. workers" [kic]. · . 
Th~ Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because It is ·"self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
cases). Th~ BIA .also .held, however: "We ~ot only jencoura~e, but require th~ intr?duct~on of 
corroborative testunomal and documentary evidence, ,here available." /d. Iftestunomal evidence 
lacks specificity, detai~ or credibility, there· is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence.· Matter.ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1 i36 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not witholt weight and have received consideration 
above. US CIS may, in. its discretion, use as advisoty opinions statements submitted as expert 
I 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, I . 
U~CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. /d. The submission of letters/ from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. USCIS m~y even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 
I 
(Cormn'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
In this instance, the director had previously acknowledged the witness letters, and instructed the 
petitioner to submit first-hand evidence to substanti¥e the claims therein. The petitioner had 
responded with additional letters and evidence that did not relate directly to the petitioner's work. 
Many of the letters are not lacking in detai~ but those/ details concern what the petitioner hopes to 
accomplish, rather than the progress he has made toward achieving those goals. Witnesses have 
I ' 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
asserted that the_ petitioner has earned an international reputation, but the only evidence of that 
_ reputation is in the form of letters from witnesses whorit the petitioner has selected. One witness's 
uncorroborated reference to citation of the petitioner's published work amounts to a claim, rather 
_than evidence in support ofthat claim. 
The petitioner has established that he inade a-positive impression on his mentors and collaborators over 
the course ofhis career thus far. In terms of the petitiondr's past work, those witnesses have provided 
details about what the petitioner has studied, but not that t1ns work has had an impact and influence at a 
level that would justify a national interest waiver. Theil- expectations about what ·the petitioner will­
achieve in the future are, by nature, speculative, and hav~ negligible weight as evidence. At best, the 
waiver application appears to be premature, predicated not on what the petitioner has accomplished, but 
on what he intends to accomplish once he is a permanent r~sident ofthe United States. _ 
As is clear from a plain reading of the -statute, it was Jot- the httent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States shbuld 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 mterest waivers on the basis of the overall hnportance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of Hie evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an appro~ed labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. . . · I 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely ~ith the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
\_