dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
OBce ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
ot*ur4& 
!dentifying data deleted to 
 U.S. Citizenship 
prevent clrqrl unwamred :@; and Immigration 
invasion (3: personal privscy O ct,,, ,# Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 08 800 3 1553 
 NOv 1 9 2009 
IN RE: 
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 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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). 
Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. 5 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 
 The petitioner seeks employment as a mechanical engineer. 
 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. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and evidence, most of which was already part of the record of 
proceeding. For the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's conclusion that the petitioner 
has not established her eligibility for the benefit sought. 
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. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner is an alien of exceptional ability. This issue is moot, 
however, because the record establishes that the petitioner holds a Ph.D. degree from the Stevens 
Institute of Technology. The 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. 
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 (Nov. 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't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 2 17-1 8 (Comm'r. 1998) (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- 18. 
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. Id. at 219. 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. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, mechanical 
engineering, and that the proposed benefits of her work, improved modeling of composite materials, 
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." 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 22 1. 
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 she seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden 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 22 1, n. 7. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to consider the reference letters and cites an 
unpublished district court decision, Mnayer v. INS, 1995 LEXIS 29832 (S. D. Fla. June 20, 1995). In 
contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the AAO 
is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in cases arising within 
the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 715,718 (BIA 1993). The reasoning underlying a 
district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the AAO; 
however, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. In addition, as the 
published decisions of the district courts are not binding on the AAO outside of that particular 
proceeding, the unpublished decision of a district court would necessarily have even less persuasive 
value. Regardless, we do not contest that the reference letters carry evidentiary weight. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 
(Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give 
less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 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)). 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters concluding, with little explanation, that the 
petitioner meets the requirements set forth at NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217-18, are insufficient. 
Similarly, letters that simply praise the petitioner's talent or the novelty and potential significance of 
the petitioner's research are less persuasive than letters that provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner has already influenced the field. In addition, letters from independent references who 
were previously aware of the petitioner through her reputation and who have applied her work are 
the most persuasive. 
The petitioner received her Master's degree and her Ph.D. from the Stevens Institute of Technology. 
Her Ph.D. was awarded in May 2007, 15 months before the petition was filed. The petitioner then 
began a postdoctoral position with the same institute and continued in that position as of the date of 
filing. 
the petitioner's supervisor while working towards her Master's degree, discusses 
their collaboration on develo in a robot for power plant steam pipe inspection in cooperation with 
ABB Group. Specifically, -explains that vertical pipe runs are difficult for robots and asserts 
that the petitioner "was a critical part of a team to desi the structure of a miniature robot vehicle that 
can climb a vertical pipe and inspect it for failure." &further asserts that the robot was a success 
and strengthened ABB Group's leading position in power generation technologies. The record contains 
no evidence that the petitioner is credited with this innovation, such as a atent, and the record lacks 
evidence of ABB's marketing or use of this robot. Finally, neither nor any of the petitioner's 
other references explain how this work relates to the petitioner's current modeling work. 
The petitioner's Ph.D. advisor an 
 explains the petitioner's work at the 
Stevens Institute of Technology. 
 notes the importance of accurate prediction of material 
performance to the development of new materials and asserts that the petitioner's multidisciplinary 
background in polymer science, molecular dynamics, materials science and micromechanical methods 
as well as her training in both basic research and modeling projects have contributed to her success. 
whileasserts that the petitioner's combination of experience is "rarely found in many of 
her peers," as s&ed above, special br 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. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 221. 
More specifically, 
 discusses the petitioner's work explaining how three-dimensional 
composites react to certain changes includin oxidation and/or moisture diffusion which take place 
over several years. According to the petitioner utilized the Galerkin Finite Element 
Method (GFEM) with Jacobi Conjugate Gradient (JCG) iterative methods to "effectively solve the 
thermal and moisture diffusion process." While notes that this work was published, he 
does not provide examples of how the petitioner's models are being used by independent researchers 
in academia or industry. Rather, he states generally that the petitioner's models "have brought 
substantial accuracy in performance predictions." 
Given the reference to the petitioner's use of "a" GFEM in a letter from - of 
Engineering at the University of Delaware, as well as other evidence of record, it is clear that GFEM 
is not the petitioner's own invention. Notably, the petitioner's 2004 article in Finite Elements in 
Analysis and Design cites a 1996 article coauthored by for the proposition that a 
Galerkin methodology is suitable "for solving large meshes using element-free and iterate solution 
techniques for increased computational efficiency when dealing with large mesh sizes." This 1996 
article by 
 reveals that he has been using Galerkin methodology to develop three 
dimensional models since 1996, before the petitioner joined his laboratory. 
of Academic Administration at the Stevens Institute of Technology, notes 
that the petitioner's doctoral and postdoctoral research was and is sponsored by the Air Force Office 
of scientific Research (AFOSR) kd the Air Force Research ~aboiatory (AFRL). The vast majority 
of academic research, if not all academic research, is supported by grants. Any research, in order to 
be accepted for funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not 
follow that every researcher who is working pursuant to a grant from the military inherently serves 
the national interest to an extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement, especially when 
that researcher is not the principal investigator. As stated above, 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 2 18. 
further asserts that the petitioner conducted "pioneering work in the development of 
[the] next generation of composite materials and is a critical member of two ongoing projects." The 
first project discusses is the petitioner's work with "the weakening of fiber-reinforced 
composites due to reaction with the constituent ases in ambient air, such as oxygen and nitrogen 
than can migrate into composites." 4 explains that the petitioner analyzed whether an 
aircraft's speed and ambience would create a migration-based reaction to weaken composite 
materials increasingly used in aircraft. does not provide the results of this research or 
provide examples of how it is being used by independent laboratories in academia or industry. 
- 
~econd,discusses the petitioner's examination of the extent to which moisture id 
tem~erature can affect different tmes of com~osite materials, including. the develo~ment of a multi- 
parketer model. Once again, 'does not identify any laboratory or company using this 
model or even expressing an interest in this model. Rather, he concludes that these two projects 
represent novel work that has "the potential for successful mitigation of failure of composites, 
especially in applications related to aircraft structures." (Emphasis added.) Finally, - 
speculates that the software currently being developed by the petitioner "will allow the designers to 
- - 
narrow down the candidate materials for aircraft components." As this project appears to be ongoing 
without having already produced influential results, it cannot serve as evidence that a waiver of the 
job offer in the national interest is warranted. 
a senior materials engineer with AFRL, discusses his collaboration with the 
petitioner on her Ph.D. project, noting that this work led to publications and presentations at 
prestigious conferences. While the publications and presentations confirm that the petitioner's work 
has been disseminated widely, at issue is whether thi; work ultimately impacted the field as a whole. 
asserts that the petitioner developed several models for the analysis of Polymer 
Matrix Composites (PMCs), which have a limited lifespan as a result of constant environmental 
degradation. As PMCs are prevalently used in turbine engines and engine-exhaust washed 
structures, their performance and durability are important for aerospace applications. 
asserts that prior models, which use classical lamination theory and one dimensional 
solutions, lack adequate capacity to deal with complicated three-dimensional shape and other 
complications presented by highly coupled material aging, damage evolution and thermo-oxidation 
processes. As such, according to the petitioner's models are superior because they 
can predict long term effects of moisture and oxygen interaction with polymeric resin. Dr. 
concludes that the resulting three dimensional Galerkin finite element methodology is 
probably one of the most widely accepted models used for modeling the diffusion processes at the 
constituent, lamina and laminate/structural scales. 
next discusses the petitioner's development of a method for predicting composite 
behavior from constituent and interphase behaviors, which will explain the best way to coat the key 
parts that require PMCs. Specifically, 
 explains that the petitioner's work "is a key 
component of a systematic effort to provide a methodology for accurately modeling both short-term 
and long-term environmental effects on com osite laminates to facilitate their designs and to better 
predict their life expectancy. hsserts that the petitioner's work on this project allows 
- - 
for a more thorough investigation on one of the representative composite materials, PMRI 5, widely 
used in aggressive environments and notes that it was published. Continuing with the same 
composite material, the petitioner, according to , used the homogenization method to 
develop a predictive model that establishes that influence of damage evolution on moisture 
diffusivity and vice-versa. While asserts that this model "will indicate at what point 
a polymer will start to degrade or be structurally affected" and notes that it has been published, he 
does not provide examples of this model being currently used in the aerospace industry. 
Finally, 
 discusses the petitioner's work with the high temperature polymeric matrix 
composites (HTPMC). While he concludes that the petitioner and her group "are among the selected 
few haking progress in developing [a] predictive model to establish the influence of damage by gas 
diffusion for HTPMC," he does not assert that this project has already produced results that have 
impacted the field as a whole. 
of ~n~ineerin~ at the University of Delaware, explains that 
he knows the petitioner through his "interaction" with - Dr. 
 discusses the 
petitioner's work with resin transfer molding (RTM). 
 asserts that the petitioner's work 
addresses the internal heat generation resulting from the exothermic polymer cure reaction that 
complicates simulating the RTM process. further states that it is his "understanding" that 
the petitioner created a realistic three-dimensional simulation model to study RTM. does 
not imply that he has adopted this method in his own work. further notes that the 
petitioner "created models at multiple length-scales that are capable of characterizing the effects of 
diffusion, oxidation, and potentially the stress and strain induced due to the microstructural changes 
in the composite" but merely speculates that this work "will be able [to] unify previous studies 
conducted at various length scales and broaden our ability to understand composite property 
evolution with time." 
a professor at the University of Texas, asserts that he came to know of the petitioner's 
work through her presentations and published articles. 
 discusses the importance of the 
petitioner's area of research, which is not contested. concludes that the petitioner's research 
results "establish one of the most systematic and comprehensive ways to establish the influence of 
environmental degradation on composite damage evolution and vice-versa." does not 
claim to be using the petitioner's models and provides no examples of any independent laboratories 
doing so in academia or industry. 
Finally, 
 notes the petitioner's professional memberships and work on a project sponsored 
by the AFOSR. Even if the petitioner's memberships were indicative of a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field, those memberships would satisfy one 
criterion for aliens of exceptional ability pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). By statute, "exceptional ability" is not, by itself, sufficient cause for a national 
interest waiver. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. Thus, the benejit which the alien presents to her 
field of endeavor must greatly exceed the "achievements and significant contributions" contemplated 
for that classification. Id; see also id. at 222. As such, we cannot conclude that meeting one 
criterion towards exceptional ability, which requires that an alien meet at least three criteria,' is 
evidence that the alien's job offer and employment certification should be waived in the national 
interest. Moreover, as stated above, simply working on a project that is supported by a government 
grant is insufficient grounds for a national interest waiver. 
a distinguished research scientist at the 
on-site contractor for AFRL and a coauthor of articles with 
 asserts 
that he is familiar with the petitioner's work through 
 asserts that 
the petitioner's work "constitutes one of the first exhaustive explanations of how the three degradation 
factors, namely, physical creep, thermo-oxidative behavior, and damage kinetics factors, are intricately 
linked together to affect material properties." further asserts that the petitioner's creation of 
models using multiple scales "brings much desired advantages including the ability to track 
concentratio; fields and the material oxidation and other chemical conversion states at the 
microstructural level." While concludes that this work demonstrates the petitioner's 
"motivation and a much needed vision to deliver new technological developments in simulating long- 
term damage evolution in given materials," he does not provide examples of the petitioner's models 
being used or even tested in the field. 
an associate professor in the mechanical engineering department at the National Chiao 
Tung University in Taiwan, discusses the importance of composite materials. Once again, we do not 
contest the substantial intrinsic merit of the petitioner's area of research. More specifically, - 
explains that the difhsivity of gas molecules plays a critical role in determining the degradation 
mechanisms and durability of high temperature polymeric matrix composites. notes that the 
petitioner developed a unique model that "combines characterizing parameters of diffusivity, oxidation 
- -- 
' 8 C.F.R. 9 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
states, and stress and strain states in a very ideal way." 
 concludes that the petitioner's model 
provides "perhaps one of the greatest level[s] of consistency and precision today" and is "practical" in 
routine research. oes not, however, explain how he has utilized the petitioner's 
models and provides no examples of other laboratories using or even testing the petitioner's models. 
The citations submitted to the record do not include any articles by = 
, a senior engineer scientist for an unidentified company or institution, asserts that he has over 
20 years of experience in the aerospace industry. His letter is not on letterhead and he does not identi@ 
his employer. The petitioner did not submit curriculum vitae. As such, his precise 
credentials and inde~endence from the ~etitioner cannot be evaluated. That said. laims not to 
have met the petitioner and to have become aware of her work through her publications. 
 notes 
that in one of the petitioner's papers "brought to [his] attention," the petitioner "described the use of 
three-dimensional micromechanical analysis to obtain the effective diffusivities for composite materials 
with periodic structure." asserts that this work places the petitioner among the "select few" to 
make progress in this area and provided "affirmative answers left open by other researchers that mark 
[a] major advancement in aerospace material performance simulations." -her states that the 
petitioner's work "is directly implicated and amplifies" his own research but provides no examples of 
how he has utilized the petitioner's work, such as through use of her models. He does not suggest that 
the petitioner's models have been formally adopted by his employer. The citations submitted to the 
record do not include any articles b- 
~oth an- assert that the petitioner will contribute to the national interest more than 
a "minimally competent researcher" or "someone with minimal education and experience." NYSDOT 
states that a 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. 22 I&N Dec. at 2 1 7- 1 8. While the language used in NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 2 1 7- 1 8 
is similar to that used by and , the ultimate meaning is far different. The language 
in NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 21 7-1 8, does not suggest that the petitioner need only demonstrate that she 
will serve the national interest to a greater extent than someone who is minimally competent or who has 
such minimal education and experience as to possibly be ineligible for the position. Rather, that 
decision states that the petitioner must establish that she will benefit the national interest to a 
substantially great degree than an available U.S. worker who is fully qualified for the position. The 
purpose behind this reasoning is that the alien employment certification process already exists to 
determine whether qualified U.S. workers are available. 
While the record contains the independent letters discussed above, the authors do not clearly explain 
the petitioner's influence on their own work or the work of others in the field. Significantly, the record 
does not contain letters from aircraft or parts manufacturers affirming their use of or even their interest 
in the petitioner's models. 
In addition to the above letters, the petitioner has submitted evidence that the journals which carried her 
articles are prestigious. We will not presume the influence of a given article from the journal in which 
Page 10 
it appeared. Rather it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate the influence of her articles. In response 
to the director's re uest for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that her 2004 article 
coauthored with q and another coauthor had been cited four times and another article 
coauthored by the petitioner had been cited once. The only two citations that predate the filing of the 
petition are two citations of the petitioner's 2004 article. The petitioner must establish eligibility as of 
the date the petition was filed. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Regl. Cornmr. 1971). Even considering those citations that postdate the filing of the petition, this 
rate of citation is not indicative of the petitioner's influence on the field as a whole. 
Moreover, the citations themselves reveal that the citing authors were not applying the petitioner's 
models to new problems or materials. The 2006 article in Composites Science and Technology cites 
the petitioner's work among other work in the field analyzing synthetic fiber composites but goes on t o 
report the authors' own three-dimensional model for natural fiber thermoset polymer composites. They 
do not single out the petitioner's work as fundamental to their own model. The 2006 article in the 
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology cites the petitioner's article as one of 
five articles exemplifling the use of phenomenological models used to describe the curing kinetics. In 
the 2008 article in the Journal of Zhejiang University, the petitioner's article is cited as one of three 
articles utilizing the finite element method, a method that is "widely used," to numerically simulate part 
of the polymer process in an efficient and low-cost way. The 2008 article from an American Institute 
of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference cites the petitioner's work but goes on to describe a new 
model developed by the authors. Finally, the 2009 article in the Journal of Composite Materials 
discusses several diffusion models and the states that the petitioner has "used finite element modeling 
to achieve similar results." None of these articles suggest that the citing authors are using the 
petitioner's models or methodology to produce new results or single out the petitioner's work from 
others working with the "widely used" finite element method. 
While the petitioner's research is no doubt of value, it can be argued that any research must be shown 
to be original and present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific 
community. Any Ph.D. thesis or postdoctoral research, in order to be accepted for graduation, 
publication or funding, must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not 
follow that every researcher who produces novel results inherently serves the national interest to an 
extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
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. 5 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 an alien employment certification certified by the Department of Labor, appropriate 
supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.