dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mechanical Engineering

identifYing data deleted to 
preve.nt clearly unwarranted 
mvaslOn of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
riLE: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Sccurit)-, 
U.S. Cilii'enship and Immigration SI:r\"iCl.:s 
Administrative Appeals Ollicl: (AA()) 
20 Massachusetts A\c .. N.Vv' .. MS 2090 
Washington. DC 20529·2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
JAN 1 4 ZOll 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member oCthe 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. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Oflice in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the ottice that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that omee. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. 
The specific requirements for tiling such a rcquest can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the oflice that originally decided your case by tiling a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a Cee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)( I )(i) requires that any motion must be 
tiled within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
I 
/? Perry Rhew 
Chief Administrative Appeals Oflice 
www.uscis.gov 
Page :2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § IIS3(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The petitioner seeks to employ the beneficiary 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 beneficiary qualifies lor 
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 additional evidence. Counsel also resubmits all of the previous 
submissions that were already part of the record of proceeding. For the reasons discussed below, we 
uphold tbe director's conclusion tbat the petitioner has not established the beneficiary'S eligibility lor 
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 tbe 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 tbe United States. 
(B) Waiver of job otTer. 
The petitioner 
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (AJ 
that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
Tbe petitioner's occupation a 
petitioner thus qualities 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 otler requirement, and thus an 
alien employment certification, is in the national interest. 
-Page 3 
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, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(lMMACT), 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 interestJ standard must 
make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benet it" [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. 
Maller of New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 217-18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First. the petitioner must show that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. Jd. at 217. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. Jd. 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 qualitications. Jd. at 217-18. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prfJ.\peClive national benetit, the 
petitioner must establish that the alien's past recordjustities projections offuture benefit to the national 
interest. Jd. at 219. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will. in the future. serve the 
national interest cannot sutTiee to establish prospective national benetit. We include the tenn 
"prospective" here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an 
alien with no demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benetit to the national interest would thus be 
entirely speculati ve. Id. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, engineering, and 
that the proposed benefits of his work, improved fuel efficiency, 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. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted materials about the importance of the petitioner's area of work. On 
appeal. ~e petitioner's Manager of Engine and Emissions Research Section, attests that 
the bene~lls are "key" to important projects. Eligibility for the waiver, however, must rest 
with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position sought. In other words, we generally 
Page 4 
do not accept the argument that a given project is so important that any alien qualitied to work on 
this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. 
Moreover, it cannot sutlice 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 issuc of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an issue under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the tield are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
i\ petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
lield 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 insuflicient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted eight articles about the importance of the beneficiary's area of 
research. Some of these articles are about the omnivorous engine the petitioner is developing. The 
record does not establish that the beneficiary is working on this project. Other articles are about the 
importance of improved fuel etliciency and oil alternatives in general. We have already acknowledged 
above that the benc!iciary works in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. One article discusses the 
petitioner's use of X-rays to understand tuel mixing and combustion dynamics in a tuel injection 
system. The article identifies Jim Wang as the principal investigator for this project. The article 
concludes that while the X-ray technique "could have a major impact on nozzle design," it is still in its 
early stages and the results might not mimic an actual engine. 
The petitioner also submitted three "sample" articles by the beneficiary and four articles that cite the 
beneliciary's work. In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner 
submitted an additional tive articles that cite the beneficiary's work as one of multiple background 
studies. It does not appear from any of the citations that the authors are applying the beneficiary's 
models or otherwise utilizing his work in their own research, although we acknowledge that one article 
eites the beneficiary's work as one of seven articles containing very interesting results. The petitioner 
also submitted the beneticiary's more recent publications and presentations that postdate the filing of 
the petition. As the petitioner must establish the beneticiary's eligibility as of the date of filing, we 
cannot consider this evidence. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Maller ofKali);hak. 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Reg'1. Comm'r. 1971). 
On appeal, counsel asserts that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should not expect 
numerous citations because the beneficiary works in an area that is "incredibly complex and [of al 
sophisticated nature" and because the work is "often highly proprietary and contidential." The 
petitioner submits the beneficiary's 2006 proprietary report, Counsel does not explain why the 
complexity of the bencticiary's area of research would limit its citation potential. While the beneficiary 
has worked on proprietary projects, he has also published some of his work. While the low level of 
citation and the minimal nature of the citations themselves do not preclude eligibility, the citations do 
not, by themselves, establish the beneficiary's influence in the tield. 
and one of the beneticiary's 
(ASME) and a staff mechanical engineer with the petitioner, "~IUll)WI~U:~jjl,~ 
as a technical reviewer for ASME conference proceedings. In addition, 
the Journal of Automobile Engineering, confirms that 
manuscripts for the journal. The attached list of completed reviews lists two reviews, one of which 
postdates the filing of the petition and, thus,' )(1), (12); 
Maller ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. contirn1s that 
the beneficiary reviewed a manuscript for that j 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in discounting the signiticance of the bencticiary's 
service as a session chair/organizer and reviewer because "only those researchers having high 
qualifications are requested to participate in such activities." More specifically, counsel states: 
"Individuals selected must have signiticant research accomplishments, publication of influential 
research, scientitic innovations in the tield, and overall standing and acclaim in the field in order to be 
selected." The unsupported assertions of counsel, however, do not constitute evidence. Mallcr of 
Obaighena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Malter o/Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. L 3 n.2 (BIA 
1983); Maller of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
We cannot ignore that the beneficiary's own professor requested that the beneficiary serve as session 
chair and that one of the petitioner's employees requested that the beneficiary pertorn1 as a technical 
reviewer. Thus, his selection tor these positions is not indicative of any recognition beyond his 
immediate circle of colleagues, Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted any evidence to support 
counsel's assertions regarding the requirements to serve as a session chair, organizer or manuscript 
reviewer. Specitically, the record lacks evidence that SAE, ASME, the Journal 0/ Automohile 
Engineering or Fuel utilizes a small, elite group of session chairs or reviewers. Significantly, the 
record lacks evidence regarding the number of SAE sessions at their events. With respect to review 
services. we cannot ignore that peer-reviewed proceedings and journals require numerous scientists 
and/or engineers to review the submitted manuscripts and abstracts, The record simply does not 
support counsel's assertions that these duties are indicative of the beneficiary's influence in the field. 
evidence consists of letters trom individuals currently or formerly attiliated with the 
where the beneficiary obtained a Master of Science degree, the University 
Page 6 
associate 
addresses the 
ects rather than his past work at the University of Helwan. 
concludes that the beneficiary "is a rare scientist who possesses multidisciplinary knowledge, which is 
necessary for the [sic] engine research." _otes that the beneticiary has two Master of Science 
degrees in engineering and a Ph.D. Simple exposure to advanced technology constitutes, essentially, 
occupational training which can be articulated on an application for an alien employment certification. 
Special or unusual knowledge or training, while perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. employer. 
does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. NYSDOT 22 I&N Dec. at 221. Moreover. 
academic performance cannot alone satisfy the national interest threshold or assure substantial 
prospective national benetit. In all cases the petitioner must demonstrate specific prior achievements 
that establish the alien's ability to benefit the national interest. Id at 219, n.6. 
during that time the beneficiary's advisor and the 
the beneficiary was pertorming his research. According 
belletlcHlry "developed an optical diagnostic system for detailed 
investigation of a diesel fuel injection systems [sic]." _urther explains that the beneficiary 
lJla'veu a crucial role in setting up a very-high speed Laser imaging system" in 
oncllides: "Utilizing this highly advanced Laser imaging technology, [the beneficiary] 
initiated research and development projects on advanced tuel injections systems and achieved 
numerous world-class results, as ret1ected by our publications and conference presentations" The mere 
dissemination of the beneficiary's work through publications and presentations does not demonstrate 
the innuence of that work. _oes not provide examples of independent laboratories utilizing 
the beneficiary's diagnostic system or otherwise applying the beneficiary's doctoral research. 
~raiscs the beneticiary's academic accomplishments, including his grade point average. As 
stated above, however, academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, 
cannot alone satisfy the national interest threshold or assure substantial prospective national benefit. 
Id. at 219, n.6. _eiterates ~ssertion that the beneficiary achieved "world-c1ass" 
results and state~eneticiary_"s~cces,~fu~nted an Engine Simulation ~'ode to hclp 
analyze hiS spray charactenzatlon tmdmgs.· _sserts that the "concept ot ll1tegrallon 
between different aspects of research continues to gain ground today because it provides correlations 
between fuel injector characteristics and engine emissions." _does not, however, provide 
any examples of independent research laboratories using the beneficiary's Engine Simulation Code 
and the citations in the record do not renect any usage of that code beyond the beneficiary' s 
collaborators. 
the petitioner in 2003 at its 
petitioner has "had 
asserts that the beneficiary 
--with similar 
Page 7 
experience and qualilications." As noted by the director. however. 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 221. 
that the beneficiary's section of the CTR is pursuing the development of advanced 
technologies to improve fu~ and other performance parameters of reciprocating engines 
while reducing emissions. ~otes that this section received a research and development 
award in 1999, before the beneliciary worked there, and other awards on ·Iied dates. 
also notes that the section has produced five patented technologies. not indicate that 
the beneticiary is a listed inventor on any of these patents. 
beneticiary's work more specilically. 
imlplemen.!!:~ an advanced injection system for 
_further explains that the beneficiary also initiated a 
locomotive Common Rail fuel injection spray visualization program to demonstrate the spray behavior 
from the large injectors on the two-stroke locomotive being built by EMD. One of the 
beneficiary'S collaborators on this project, discusses this work in more detail. We 
will address his letter below. 
discusses the bcndiciary's work using X-rays Irom the petitioner's __ 
penetrate and understand the structure and dynamics of fuel sprays in fu~ 
";~UW.lC' that this work "will help manufacturers build cleaner, more etIicient diesel engines."' 
At issue, however, is whether the beneliciary already has a track record of success with some degree of 
influence on the field as a whole. In a second letter, _notes the ... ;l2I2hi::li£:lililI1 of the 
petitioner" s laser and discusses some of the lindings resulting Irom this laser. _does not, 
however. explicitly state that the beneliciary is responsible for all of those findings. 
that the beneficiary's X-ray work has produced "invaluable inlormation.'· 
that the beneliciary's lindings '·are used the Computation Fluid Dynamic 
community to design and develop new simulation that the goal of this 
work is to develop technology for efficient engines. not provide a single example of 
an independent laboratory using the beneficiary's X-ray to develop new simulation models ,md 
the record does not contain letters from independent computation Iluid dynamic engineers who are 
doing so. The citations in the record are also not from engineers using the beneliciary·s lindings to 
develop new simulation models. 
finally, in his 
developing 
fuel.'· While 
second letter, _ asserts that the beneficiary "is the lead investigator lor 
to replace diesel fuel with Bio-Di-Methyl-Ether, an environmentally friendly 
jls,;usses the benelits of these luels, he does not explain how the beneJiciary·s 
already influenced the field as a whole. 
Page 8 
photcill source was "physically the same" as one previously used 
by and that the beneficiary conducted his X-ray project in 
collaboration with SNL to study spray patterns using conventional laser optical techniques. _ 
does not explain how this collaboration has influenced the field. _ also discusses the 
benetic~boration with to evaluate "a completely different injection system." 
While _xplains that this project required "considerable experimental set up abilities" and 
contirms that the beneticiary successfully completed thliiro'ect, ~es not explain how this 
project has influenced the tield. In a second letter, explains that this work resulted in a 
conference paper and "potentially a journal article." The mere dissemination of thc beneticiary' s 
research is insufficient absent evidence of its ultimate influence in the tield . 
••••• torthe which funds the beneticial)'s work for 
, asserts that he has known the beneficiary since the beneticiary began working for the 
petItIOner. ~sserts that the beneficiary has been a "key researcher" in the petitioner's Vehicle 
Technology program. _explains that the petitioner's "team," for the first time, "used X-rays to 
penetrate through gasoline and diesel sprays and made detailed measurements for fuel spray." _ 
_ further explains that this work "uncovered a previously unknown shockwave in diesel sprays. 
which may eventually help manufacturers improve the combustion process and thus build cleaner. more 
et1icien~ systems." _oes not discuss what impact this work has already had in the 
tield. ~otes that th~nt of Energy funds the beneficiary's work. Any research. in 
order to be accepted for funding. must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It 
does not tallow that every researcher who is working with a government grant inher~s the 
national interest to an extent that ustifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. _then 
asserts that the and General Motors have all become 
interested in the beneficiary's work. The petitioner collaborated with Caterpillar and a formcr 
subsidiary of General Motors, EMD. _does not explain the signiticance of the beneficiary's 
work on projects that are of interest «~nts and collaborators. The record does not contain a 
letter from otTicials at the explaining how they became aware of the 
beneticiary's work and how they are applying that work. 
As stated above. the record contains a letter from one of the beneticiary's collaborators on the 
projects for explains the goals of the 
project and praises professionalism. _ 
notes that the beneticiary prepared a technical report on diesel spray characteristics using laser 
imaging. ~serts that this report "surpassed the expectations of [the beneficiary'sl supervisor 
and EMD" and "is still considered the 'gold standard'" within the petitioner's Engine and Emission 
group. The record tails to establish how the report has advanced the petitioner's work on other 
projects. While _also discusses the beneficiary's work on the EMD common rail injection 
system project. i~s that this project is still in a preliminary stage and the record does not 
establish how this project has already influenced the tield. 
Page 9 
. oner submits a letter from 
'"it"""t,,, the claim that the beneficiary's report 
standard" by the petitioner's Engine and Emission Group. 
has implemented the beneficiary's work, if indeed it has. 
beneficiary has a "unique set of skills and experience which could not m researchers," 
a shortage of workers with the beneficiary's skills and experience cannot serve as the basis for a 
wavier of the alien employment certification process. 
As stated above, it cannot suffice to state that the beneficiary possesses usefill 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. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
Furthermore, with regard to experience, the regulations indicate that ten years of progressive experience 
is one possible criterion that may be used to establish exceptional ability. Because exceptional ability, 
by itself: docs not justify a waiver of the alien employment certification requirement. arguments hinging 
on the degree of experience required for the profession, while relevant, are not dispositive to the matter 
at hand. Id. at 222. 
with the 
taught at the 
and coauthored work with although we acknowledge 
that at that institution did not overlap with the beneficiary's time there. _notes 
that the beneficiary is conducting his research using "one of the most brilliant x-ray i~orld." 
Qualitication to work for the petitioner and use its advanced equipment is insutlicient grounds for a 
waiver of the alien employment certification process. ~eculates as follows: 
r: or the tirst time, it may be possible to understand the structure and dynamics of filel 
spray in the near-nozzle region of an injector. The technique that [the beneticiary 1 is 
using could have a major impact on Diesel injector design, filel injection parameters, 
and spray modeling. 
_oes not claim to have applied the beneficiary's models or otherwise utilized the beneticiarv's 
~lso fails to identify specitic examples of the beneficiary's int1uence in the field beyond 
his immediate circle of collaborators. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is ·'selt~serving." See, e.g, Muller oj'S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Mutter oj' Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Page 10 
The opinions of experts in the tield are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as cxpert testimony. See Maller 
of ('aron international, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the tinal determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benetit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters hom experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether 
they support the alien's eligibility, See id. at 795; see a/so Malter oj'V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 
(81A 2008) (noting that cxpert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"), 
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 a/so Malter oj'Sof}ici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Maller oj'Treasure Crafi oj' CalijiJrnia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. 
Comm'r. 1972)), 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of talent without providing specilic 
examples of how the beneficiary's innovations have int1uenced the field. Merely repeating the legal 
standard for a benefit does not satisfY the petitioner's burden of proof.] The petitioner submitted 
only a single independent letter and this letter does not suggest the author has applied the 
beneficiary's work. The petitioner also failed to submit corroborating evidence in existence prior to 
the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
According to thc Dcpartment of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (001-1), mechanical 
cngineers research, design, develop, manufacture, and test tools, engines, machines, and other 
mechanical devices. See hl1p://www,bls.goY/oc0/ocos027.htm (accessed January 6, 20 II and 
incorporated into the record of proceeding), Thus, the fact that the beneticiary has worked on 
original projects does not set him apart lrom engineers with the same minimum qualitications for the 
job. As stated above, even where the beneficiary is responsible for an innovation as might be 
demonstratcd by a patent, whether the specitic innovation serves the national interest must be decided 
on a case-by-case basis. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec, at 221, n. 7, 
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 benetit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
scientilic community. Any Ph.D. thesis or other research, in order to be accepted for graduation, 
publication or funding, must olTer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not 
follow that every researcher who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge inherently serves the national interest to an extent that justilies a waiver of the job olfer 
requirement. 
1 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (ED.N.Y, 1989), af}'d, 905 r. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Al'.1'r Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N,Y.). Similarly, USCIS need !lot acccpt 
primarily cO!lclusory assertions, 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General oflhe Uniled SI"Ies. 745 F. Supp. 9, IS 
(D.C. Dis!. 1990). 
As is clear trom a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualitied to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement ofajob 
otler 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 certitication 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 liling of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by an alien employment certitication certitied by the Department of Labor. appropriate 
supporting evidence and fee, 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.