dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Pharmacology

DATE: JUN 21 201l 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (1\1\0) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
u.s. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § l1S3(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please he 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 in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen with 
the field office or service center that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal 
or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 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. § l03.S(a)(l)(i) 
requires any motion to be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~erryRhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks to classify the beneficiary under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The petitioner, a public university, seeks to employ the beneficiary as a research assistant 
professor. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a 
labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the beneficiary 
qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the 
petitioner has not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the 
national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally. 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, 1 () 1 st Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
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 Immigration Services (USerS)] believes it 
appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clear! y 
an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation (NYSD07), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 
1998), 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. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 
Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a 
substantially greater degree than would an available United States worker having the same minimum 
qualifications. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The intention behind the term "prospective" is to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. 
The AAO also notes that the USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.S(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" 
as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of 
endeavor. By statute, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job 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 exceptional ability, or as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating 
a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on September 20, 2010. In an accompanying statement, 
counsel stated that the beneficiary "has been involved in highly important research on the 
mechanisms of malignant and nonmalignant pancreatic pain in patients .... She performs highly 
specialized islet cell transplantation research and procedures that are life saving for the patient for 
the patient with intractable pain of chronic pancreatitis" (emphasis in original). Counsel asserted 
that the beneficiary's "research has resulted in important implications in the fields of Neuroscience, 
pain research, as well as pharmaceutical research and development." 
Page 4 
The beneficiary herself stated: "I am currently leading the very challenging studies of elucidating the 
mechanisms that drive pain induced by chronic pancreatitis (CP) and in patients suffering from 
pancreatic cancer. This work will be a first of its kind and the clinical implications are tremendous." 
To support counsel's claim that the beneficiary "is considered one of the leading experts in the field 
of Medical Pharmacology," the petitioner submitted several witness letters, mostly from faculty 
members at the petitioning university. The letters all predate the filing of the petition by several 
months or years, having been prepared in support of earlier, denied immigrant petitions. (Likewise, 
many exhibits date from April 2010 or earlier.) 
stated: 
beneficiary conducted her doctoral studies in] the laboratory of .. 
. laboratory performs basic research on mechanisms underlying pain 
across a variety of models .... [The beneficiary's] research was primarily 
concentrated on mechanisms of pancreatitis-induced pain and the role of 
proinflammatory mediators in such pain .... During her graduate career she provided 
input as to research direction, experimental design, and became expert in surgical and 
behavioral testing skills required to finish the project. These are important methods 
for testing the validity of new drugs for the treatment of pain in humans .... 
[The beneficiary] received her PhD in Medical Pharmacology in 2007. One of the 
major findings of her studies is the role of inflammatory cytokine IL-6 in generation 
and maintenance of pain in chronic pancreatitis. In particular, [the beneficiary] has 
demonstrated that by antagonizing IL-6 in a model of chronic pancreatitis one can 
achieve a degree of pain relief that is comparable in efficacy to opioids, the only pain 
medications that are currently available for patients with intractable pain of chronic 
pancreatitis. This study is a major breakthrough in the field of pancreatitis pain that 
will have a tremendous impact on the entire field of pain resea~ 
beneficiary] is currently a postdoctoral fellow in the laboratory of __ 
_ Her research effort there is focused on the mechanisms of malignant and 
non-malignant pancreatic pain in humans .... She is performing a highly specialized 
islet cell transplantation procedure that is considered a life-saving procedure in 
patients with intractable pain of chronic pancreatitis. There are only two centers in 
the entire United States capable of performing this unique procedure, and [the 
beneficiary] is one of only a handful of scientists capable of performing it. 
the beneficiary "an innovative scientist" with "technical expertise in 
aSi,eSSHll!: pam across a variety of experimental models," and who "became expert in surgical and 
behavioral testing skills required to finish projects." 
Page 5 
'stated that the beneficiary is "intimately involved in isolating 
islet cells to treat diabetes pancreatitis. [The beneficiary] possesses a unique combination of 
skills that makes her absolutely irreplaceable and vital for the Center of Cellular Transplantation.'· 
at the petitioning university, stated that the beneficiary's 
"unique combination of research skills and training, as well as her medical background, make her a 
unique and highly valued medical researcher." 
stated that the beneficiary "is one of a small number of surgeons in the 
United States that has successfully accomplished the autologous transplantation to treat patients with 
chronic pancreatitis and relieve their pain and maintain normal insulin levels." 
associate professor at the petitioning university, stated that the beneficiary 
m.'chanlislllS of pancreatitis pain, demonstrating a significant role in the activation 
of cytokines such as IL-6 that promote pain of the pancreas." He added: "There are important 
aspects of our research that absolutely require her technical abilities for their completion including 
difficult surgeries ... and behavioral measurements that are recorded for weeks to months." 
The remaining four initial witnesses work for various ot~h.e.r.;;;1 
_ . the beneficiary's residency training. 
praised the beneficiary's work in posItIve but general terms, and 
to be "an innovative and capable scientist who can and will make very significant 
contributions to the health and well being of Americans." 
retired senior director that he has "known rthe 
beneficiary] since 1995," when the beneficiary was years but did not specify how. _ 
••• 1Ii provided a rough outline of the beneficiary's academic progress and stated that her 
"knowledge, experience, [and] scientific abilities in the field of medical pharmacology could be 
beneficial to the USA." 
a medical project manager stated: 
I am not a mentor or colleague of [the beneficiary], but for the last several years I had 
met with her at scientific meetings to discuss one of the most important topics in 
modern neurobiology and neurochemistry, namely chronic pancreatitis-induced pain . 
. . . She demonstrated the chronic pancreatitis-induced pain is driven by activation of 
TRPVl receptors and increases in peripheral interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels .... [The 
beneficiary] has elucidated at least two potential novel opportunities (antagonism of 
TRPVl receptors and inhibitors of IL-6) for the treatment of several types of chronic 
pain, both of which are of great interest to the pharmaceutical industry. 
senior research investigator at stated: "I am not a 
mentor or colleague of [the beneficiary], but for the last several years I had met with her to discuss 
Page 6 
one of the most important topics in modern neurobiology 
The AAO notes that a very similar passage appeared 
common authorship or use of a shared template. 
namely chronic pain." 
letter, which suggests 
Regarding the beneficiary's stated: 
[The beneficiary] has demonstrated that pro inflammatory cytokines that sustain 
inflammation in chronic pancreatitis are also responsible for generation and 
maintenance of pain in this devastating condition. This revolutionary finding lead 
[sic] to the of a novel class of analgesic drugs, namely, 
orally available for the treatment of several chronic pain 
conditions, including neuropathic pain and migraine, which are major health care 
problems for millions of Americans. 
The petitioner submitted copies of four journal articles and several conference presentations that the 
beneficiary co-wrote. The petitioner also submitted copies of two articles containing citations of the 
tefiiciiuy's work. One of these citations is a self-citation by the beneficiary's co-author,_ 
leaving one independent citation of the petitioner's published work. The submitted 
evidence, therefore, did not show that other researchers shared the witnesses' opinion of the 
beneficiary's work as "pioneering" or "revolutionary." 
On November 9, 2010, the director issued a request for evidence. The director instructed the 
petitioner to "submit documentary evidence to establish ... a past record of specific prior 
achievement that justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest." The director also 
specifically asked for copies or documentation of independent citation (as opposed to self-citation by 
the beneficiary or her collaborators) of the beneficiary's work. 
The petitioner's response included copies of eight citing articles. Counsel stated: 
[A]lthough numbers of citations (so called the h-factor) can serve as an indicator of 
scientific proflicacy [sic], ... the h-factor may provide misleading information about 
a scientist's accomplishments. Most important, the fact that the h-factor is bound by 
the total number of publications means that scientists with a short career are at an 
inherent disadvantage, regardless of the importance of their discoveries and 
accomplishments. For example, had Albert Einstein died in early 1906, his h-index 
would have ended at 4 or 5 ... despite his being widely acknowledged as the most 
importance [sic] physicists [sic] in our time. 
The h-index is not simply the total number of a researcher's citations. Rather, it is the result of a 
mathematical formula. 1 A researcher who has four papers cited at least four times each would have 
1 The proposal for the h index first appeared in_"An index to quantity an individual's scientific research 
output," Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2005 November 15; 102(46): 16569-16572. The article is available online at 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g()v!pmc/artic1es/PMCI2~3H32/ (excerpt added to record June 6, 2012). 
Page 7 
an h-index of 4; one with at least ten papers with ten or more citations each would have an h-index 
of 10, and so on. It is, therefore, true that no researcher can have an h-index higher than his or her 
total number of articles. Nevertheless, the director did not ask for information about the 
beneficiary's h-index. The director asked about the total number of citations. Because the director 
did not request information about the beneficiary's h-index, counsel's assertions about Albert 
Einstein (copied almost verbatim from Wikipedia 2) are irrelevant. 
Three of the eight documented citations are self-citations by the beneficiary's collaborators, 
including prior leaving five documented independent 
citations of the beneficiary'S work. Only three of those five citations are marked as having appeared 
in articles published before the petition's September 20, 2010 filing date. Therefore, the petitioner 
did not establish a significant pattern of citation of the beneficiary's work before the filing date. 
An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time 
of filing the application or petition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). uscrs cannot properly approve the 
petition at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. 
See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). 
Counsel observed that one of the citing articles "is a commentary [on the beneficiary'S article]. Pain 
recognized the importance of this study and invited esteemed experts to contribute a commentary. 
The fact that Pain considered the work significant is supported by the fact that the journal chose to 
publish a commentary about the research." The AAO notes that the beneficiary'S 
doctoral supervisor and co-author of her article, identified himself as a of Pain. 
Furthermore, the petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary'S article or the commentary (which 
both appeared in the same issue of Pain) were published before the September 2010 filing date. 
Counsel claimed that the article and commentary appeared in the May 22, 2010 issue of Pain, but 
the copy of the commentary in the record is an unpublished, unpaginated, undated proof copy, with 
incomplete bibliographic information provided as "xxx (2010) xxx-xxx." Counsel appears to have 
derived the May 22 date from a fine-print legend at the bottom of the first page. reading "001 of 
original article: 1O.1016/j.pain.2010.05.022." The numbers "2010.05.022," however, do not refer to 
the date "May 22, 2010." Rather, the legend is plainly marked as a 001, or digital object identifier, 
which in this instance coincidentally resembles a calendar date. The proof also shows the 001 for 
the commentary, which is 10.1016/j.pain.20l0.06.033. "2010.06.033" cannot correspond directly to 
a calendar date because June does not have 33 days. Thus, there is no evidence in the record to show 
that the beneficiary'S article or the commentary were published on May 22, 2010, as claimed, or at 
any point before September 20, 2010. 
Counsel asserted that the beneficiary's job requires "the combination of both a Medical Doctor 
degree and a Ph.D. in Medical Pharmacology [which] are a rare combination of credentials." 
2 From Wikipedia's "H-index" article, as it existed in December 20 I 0: 
h·index would be stuck at 4 or 5." Available 
Page 8 
Counsel contended that the Department of Labor would not grant a labor certification calling for that 
combination. Counsel cited no statute, regulation, case law, or evidence to support this claim. The 
unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1,3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez­
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
The petitioner submitted four additional witness letters. Two of the witnesses are researchers at the 
petitioning university. a research associate who has shared author credit 
with the beneficiary, called the beneficiary mtegral part of the pancreatitis center"' and stated that 
she "has come up with [an] absolutely innovative method to measure pain through the use of 
algometer," which "can offer insight into understanding other debilitating diseases and to compare the 
effectiveness of different treatments. There are important aspects of pancreatitis research that 
absolutely require her technical abilities and knowledge for their completion." 
. stant professor and director of the petitioner's Pediatric Liver and Intestinal 
Transplant Program, stated that the petitioner "has discovered a crucial role of interleukin-6 in the 
maintenance of pancreatitis-induced pain, and in collaboration with a novel 
small molecule compound for treatment of such pain." _ stated that the petitioner "is a [sic] 
~rsonnel in the tremendously demanding task of successful islet isolation from the pancreas." 
_ also stated: "The extraordinary combination of clinical and basic science expertise has 
qualified her to be invited as a reviewer for a [sic] several major peer reviewed journals ... an 
opportunity that not every scientist has an [sic] honor of having." 
The record does not support the claim that participation in peer review is a rare honor rather than a duty 
expected of scientists who submit their own work for peer review. Furthermore, while the petitioner 
has submitted copies of several reviews she has prepared, everyone of them includes the heading 
"Reviewed on behalf of--.. which suggests that_received the invitations 
to perform peer review, ~to the beneficiary. 
career demonstrates many 
'UTl)lIrln blreakmlg contributions" and "unparalleled findings." 
pralised the petitioner's Pain 
article, stating: "The unique findings have never been described before." _ 
is one of several witnesses to praise two book chapters that the beneficiary co-wrote, but which 
remained unpublished when the petitioner responded to the request for evidence in December 2010. 
A number of witnesses have asserted that the beneficiary's achievements and/or skills place her in 
the three percent in her field. Even witnesses said to be independent of one another (such as 
this same "3%" figure, which, like the shared language 
witnesses did not write their letters entirely independently. 
Page 9 
The director denied the petition on January 27, 2011, stating that the petitioner had not established 
the influence of the beneficiary's work. The director observed, for instance, that the petitioner had 
not shown significant citation of the beneficiary's work, or that procedures developed by the 
beneficiary are in widespread use. The director also asserted that "it is next to impossible" to assess 
the impact of book chapters before their publication. 
On appeal, counsel states that the director improperly required the petitioner to "establish that [the 
beneficiary] had the ability to serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than the 
majority of her peers." Counsel asserts: "This is completely wrong and ... would be an impossible 
standard to prove. How would one identify her peers and weigh her ability against the others?" 
Many of the petitioner's witnesses, including some of its own faculty members, claim to have 
performed just such a comparison, placing the beneficiary in the "top 3%" of her field, specialty, 
"young scientists" or some other grouping. Therefore, it does not serve the petitioner well to assert, 
on appeal, that no such comparison is possible. (Elsewhere on appeal, counsel repeats the "3%" 
figure, without explaining how so many witnesses managed to derive exactly that figure if it is not 
possible to "weigh [the beneficiary's] ability against the others.") 
The language that counsel contests comes from NYSDOT, a binding precedent decision: 
The alien ... must have established, in some capacity, the ability to serve the national 
interest to a substantially greater extent than the majority of his or her colleagues. 
The Service here does not seek a quantified threshold of experience or education, but 
rather a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on 
the field as a whole. 
[d. at 219 n.6. Counsel cites no court decision or other authority to show that the precedent decision 
is "completely wrong." Counsel likewise treats another NYSDOT passage as though it were a new 
requirement invented ad hoc by the director for the denial: "The USCIS of1icer has set out a 
requirement 'that an alien seeking an exemption from the labor certification process must present a 
national benefit so great as to outweigh the national interest inherent in the labor certification 
process. '" The passage quoted by counsel is taken essentially verbatim from page 218 of the 
precedent decision; it is not an arbitrary new requirement that "[t]he USCIS officer has set out." 
Counsel asserts that the director "completely disregarded [the beneficiary'S] exceptional ability as it 
relates to the labor certification process." By statute, aliens of exceptional ability are, by default, 
subject to the labor certification process. 
With respect to the minimal citation of the beneficiary'S work, counsel states: "How much clearer 
can we make this application? If this type of research is being conducted at only three sites in the 
world, what can we expect regarding research papers that relate to this work?" The AAO notes that 
the previously submitted letter attributed to that the beneficiary's 
"work is frequently cited by worldwide groups ... , Great Britain ... , United 
States ... , Austria ... just to name a few." Only after the director observed the lack of evidence 
Page 10 
that the petitioner's "work is frequently cited" has counsel claimed that the citation rate is low 
simply because almost no one else is performing research of this kind. The record, in any case, lacks 
documentary evidence to support the "three sites in the world" claim. 
Counsel maintains: "There is no question based on the evidence that [the beneficiary] is substantially 
better than her peers." The AAO is not bound to accept this conclusion simply because counsel 
declares it to be obvious. The objective documentation in the record shows a handful of published 
papers with a handful of citations, as well as peer reviews conducted on behalf of a full professor at 
the petitioning institution. The only indication that the beneficiary stands above her peers comes 
from witness letters that, for reasons already explained, are problematic. 
The 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). The BIA 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. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have received consideration 
above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
USC IS is ultimately responsible for making the tinal 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, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500,502 n.2 (BrA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). uscrs may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. [d. at 795; see also 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)). Several witnesses have attempted to make claims of fact that the record does not 
support. 
Counsel Claims, without evidence, that the petitioner would be unable to obtain a labor certification 
on the beneticiary's behalf. Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act does not predicate the waiver of the 
job offer requirement on the inability to obtain labor certification, but rather on the national interest. 
Counsel also claims, without evidence, that the labor certification process would inevitably result in 
the termination of the beneficiary'S employment. Also, counsel appears erroneously to equate the 
terms "minimally qualified" and "unqualified," stating paradoxically that a worker with the 
minimum qualifications for the beneficiary's position would not be qualified for the position. 
In ali, the record establishes that the beneficiary is a qualified and productive researcher who plays a 
valuable role in the laboratory where she currently works, but the record fails to provide credible 
support for witnesses' claims. The record shows that the beneficiary pursues research in an 
important field, and the impact and influence of her work may become apparent with the passage of 
time, but the present petition appears to be premature. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.