dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medical Research

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identifying data deleted to 
Prevent clearly UP ../wan 
invasion of pen~::aj privacr 
LIN 08 013 54006 
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. $ 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). 
vny Mlew 
hief, Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a research technologist. 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, submits a brief and additional evidence in addition to resubmitting all of the previously 
submitted evidence that is already a part of the record of proceeding. For the reasons discussed below, 
we uphold the director's findings that the petitioner's accomplishments, especially as of the date of 
filing, do not warrant a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(2) 
 Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -- 
(A) In general. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer. 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) 
that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
The petitioner holds a Master's degree in Chemical Engineering from Wayne State University. 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, 10 1 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 Trans-. , 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 onprospective 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, medical research, 
and that the proposed benefits of his work, improved cancer detection (especially of prostate and 
pancreatic cancer), 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, while the record includes ample evidence of the need for earlier detection of 
pancreatic cancer, 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. NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. 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 he 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 221, n. 7. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted two unpublished manuscripts, evidence that the petitioner had been 
acknowledged in three published articles by his collaborators, three presentations at professional 
conferences, his supervisor's grant, evidence of academic recognition, and several reference letters fiom 
the petitioner's immediate circle of colleagues. In response to the director's request for additional 
evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that his now published articles have been minimally cited 
and referenced in medical research reviews, a general newspaper and a few medical journals. The 
petitioner also documented citations of the articles that merely acknowledge the petitioner's assistance 
and new letters, some of which are fiom independent sources. 
The director noted that publication is expected in the petitioner's field, even among postdoctoral 
trainees; that the petitioner's publications appeared after the date of filing; that the citations of the 
petitioner's work were minimal; that the online medical research reviews do not mention the petitioner 
by name; that the record lacked evidence of the influence of the petitioner's presentations, that the 
petitioner's recognition was limited to academic awards and that the letters did not establish the 
"widespread implementation" of the petitioner's work. Thus, the director concluded that the record did 
not establish that the petitioner's accomplishments were indicative of a prospective national benefit 
sufficient to warrant a waiver of the job offer in the national interest. 
On appeal, counsel reviews the petitioner's research projects and the petitioner's contributions to these 
projects as explained by the petitioner's references. Counsel then reviews the independent letters and 
notes the distinguished nature of the journals that eventually published the petitioner's articles and 
carried the articles acknowledging the petitioner's assistance in less than an authorship role. Counsel 
further asserts that the director improperly discounted the petitioner's articles by discounting the 
citations (which have increased since the director's decision) but also placed too much reliance on 
citation. In addition, counsel asserts that the director erred by failing to consider the originality of the 
work reported, assuming that the expected nature of publications diminishes the significance of the act 
of publishing rather than evaluating the individual articles and referencing the expectations for 
postdoctoral researches when the petitioner only possesses a Master's degree. Counsel then asserts that 
the director erred in failing to consider the impact of articles that were published after the date of filing, 
noting that the work reported in these articles had been completed as of the date of filing. Regarding 
the references to the petitioner's work in medical research reviews and a newspaper, counsel notes that 
they referenced articles for which the petitioner is a listed author. Finally, counsel asserts that the 
director applied too high of a standard, instead of considering only whether the petitioner is "better than 
the majority of his minimally qualified peers." Counsel concludes that it "would be very difficult to 
replace [the petitioner] with another Master's degree candidate who will be unable to match his level of 
advanced knowledge, ingenuity, experiences, productivity shown in conducting some of the most 
recognized advances in cancer research through publications in leading journals, presentations, 
citations, and recognition." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits materials about his prior supervisor's current projects; additional 
citations, some of which are self-citations by a coauthor; evidence regarding the prestige of the journals 
that have carried the petitioner's work, and additional evidence regarding the importance of the 
petitioner's area of research, an issue not in contention. 
We will consider the petitioner's publication record, presentations and the reference letters below. At 
the outset, however, we affirm the director's holding that articles published after the date of filing 
cannot be considered even if the work on which those articles are based predates the filing of the 
petition. As discussed above, the petitioner must demonstrate a track record of success with some 
degree of influence on the field as a whole. The petitioner has not explained how an article that has yet 
to be disseminated could have already influenced the field. 
The regulations, precedent decisions and other case law are extremely clear that the petitioner must 
demonstrate eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l. Cornrn'r. 1971). Matter of Katigbak provides: 
If the petition is approved, he has established a priority date for visa number 
assignment as of the date that petition was filed. A petition may not be approved for a 
profession for which the beneficiary is not qualified at the time of its filing. The 
beneficiary cannot expect to qualify subsequently by taking additional courses and 
then still claim a priority date as of the date the petition was filed, a date on which he 
was not qualified. 
Section 204 of the Act requires the filing of a visa petition for classification under 
section 203(a)(3). The latter section states, in pertinent part: "Visas shall next be made 
available to qualfied immigrants who are members of the professions." (Emphasis 
added.) It is clear that it was the intent of Congress that an alien be a recognized and 
fully qualified member of the professions at the time the petition is filed. Congress 
did not intend that a petition that was properly denied because the beneficiary was not 
at that time qualified be subsequently approved at a future date when the beneficiary 
may become qualified under a new set of facts. To do otherwise would make a farce 
of the preference system and priorities set up by statute and regulation. 
14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
The Regional Commissioner continued this reasoning in Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 
158, 160 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1977). That decision reemphasizes the importance of not obtaining a priority 
date prior to being eligible based on future experience. In fact, this principle has been extended beyond 
the alien's eligibility for the classification sought. For example, an employer must establish its ability to 
pay the proffered wage as of the date of filing. Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. 142, 144-145 (Act. 
Reg'l. Comm'r. 1977). That decision provides that a petition should not become approvable under a 
new set of facts. Recognizing that Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49 was not "foursquare with 
the instant case" in that it dealt with the beneficiary's eligibility, Matter of Great Wall, 16 I&N Dec. at 
145 still applies the reasoning. The decision provides: 
In sixth-preference visa petition proceedings the Service must consider the merits of 
the petitioner's job offer, so that a determination can be made whether the job offer is 
realistic and whether the wage offer can be met, as well as determine whether the 
alien meets the minimum requirements to perform the offered job satisfactorily. It 
follows that such consideration by the Service would necessarily be focused on the 
circumstances at the time of filing of the petition. The petitioner in the instant case 
cannot expect to establish a priority date for visa issuance for the beneficiary when at 
the time of making the job offer and the filing of the petition with this Service he 
could not, in all reality, pay the salary as stated in the job offer. 
Id. (Emphasis in original.) Finally, when evaluating revisions to a partnership agreement submitted in 
support of a petition seeking classification as an alien entrepreneur pursuant to section 203(b)(5) of the 
Act, this office relied on Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49 for the proposition that "a petition 
cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts." 
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r. 1998). That decision further provides, citing 
Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that we cannot "consider facts that come into 
being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Ultimately, in order to be meritorious 
in fact, a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval as of the date it 
was filed. Ogundipe v. Muhey, 541 F.3d 257,261 (4fi Cir. 2008). 
While citations published after the date of filing may serve as evidence of the continued relevance of 
an alien's work that had already been well cited as of the filing date, they cannot be considered 
evidence that the alien was already influential as of that date. Moreover, articles by the alien that 
were not published as of the date of filing and, thus, had not been subject to peer review and 
disseminated in the field as of that date, cannot establish eligibility for the waiver as of the date of 
filing. To hold otherwise would have the untenable result of an alien securing a priority date based 
on the speculation that his work might prove influential while the petition is pending. 
The petitioner obtained his Master's degree from Wayne State University in December 2004. In 
January 2005, the petitioner joined the Center for Molecular Imaging Research (CMIR) at 
Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School where he remained as of the date of 
filing. The response to the director's request for additional evidence reveals that the petitioner joined 
Biogen Idec in an unspecified research position. 
As of the date of filing, the petitioner's work had been presented at three conferences. Two of the 
presentations involved his research while at Wayne State University and the third presentation, given by 
the petitioner's supervisor, reported on his research completed at CMIR. The petitioner had also been 
acknowledged in three articles by the director of CMIR. In response to the director's request for 
additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that one of the articles in which the petitioner 
was acknowledged had been cited twelve times, at least five of which are cites by researchers at CMIR; 
another of the articles had been cited three times and the final article had been cited 14 times, at least 
one of which is a self-citation by the director of CMIR. While the petitioner's colleagues attest to the 
petitioner's involvement in these projects in letters that will be addressed below, we cannot ignore that 
acknowledgements denote participation at a level below that sufficient for full authorship credit. Thus, 
these articles necessarily cany less weight than articles giving the petitioner full authorship credit. 
that the petitioner's thesis project was to develop a perfusion bioreactor for long-term culture of cord 
blood hematopoietic ro enitors within porous microcarriers composed of various biologically active 
polysaccharides. D explains that this project required that the petitioner improve the 
microcarrier fabrication and derivatization procedures, design and fabricate the perfusion bioreactor and 
develop a reliable procedure for harvesting the cultured cells from within the microcarriers. Dr. 
Matthew states that the petitioner's subsequent 4-week cultures of cord blood progenitors produced "a 
number of interesting findings beyond demonstrating high-yield expansion of multiple lineages in the 
perfusion bioreactor." Specifically, according to the petitioner identified temporal 
variations in the expansion of various hematopoietic lineages and demonstrated that the timing of these 
variations was a fiction of the microcarrier m om position id also identified certain polysaccharides as 
being able to support superior expansionlgrowth and higher cellular diversity compared to the other 
macrocarrier formulations. " 
speculates that the above work "will be of particular use in designing bioreactors for the 
expansion of certain high value hematopoietic lineages such as megakaryocytes," work that is already 
proceeding in 
 laboratory and would not, according to 
 be possible without 
the petitioner's "development work and high quality results." also speculates that the 
petitioner's work would be useful to tissue engineer researchers but rovides no examples of any 
independent laboratory using the results of the petitioner's work. Tha hcontinues to build 
upon earlier results of his students does not necessarily distinguish the petitioner from other graduate 
science students. Any research, in order to be accepted for graduation, publication or funding, must 
offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
another member of the petitioner's thesis advisory committee at Wayne State 
University, focuses on the petitioner's work after leaving that institution. While 
 asserts 
that the petitioner has "provided a reliable early diagnostic method for prostate cancer," the record 
reveals only that the petitioner worked on a project pursuing this goal. The record lacks evidence 
that the ~etitioner is res~onsible for a new ~rostate cancer diagnostic tool that is now in use, as 
- 
implied by ' While 'refers to the distinguished nature of the journals that 
eventually published this work after the date of filing, we will not presume the significance of an 
article from the journal in which it appeared. Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate the 
significance of the individual article. 
, asserts that the petitioner "developed and optimized many 
of the standard screening protocols used" at CMIR. further asserts that the petitioner 
"has now generated imaging agents through the use of these approaches that have been able to detect 
colon cancer, pancreatic and prostate cancer as well as specific targets in atherosclerosis in living 
mice." While asserts that this work "has been published in prestigious peer reviewed 
journals," the petitioner was not fully credited as an author in any article published prior to the date 
of filing. Finally, states that the petitioner is "irreplaceable" at CMIR and that 
would be "concerned" if the petitioner could not continue at CMIR. The petitioner, 
however, no longer works at CMIR. 
the petitioner's immediate supervisor at CMIR under the Molecular Libraries of 
Imaging Agents (MLIA) program, explains that she spearheads the develo ment of the next 
generation of targeted, amplifiable, multimodal imaging agents and reporters. b xplains 
that the petitioner, using powerful combinatorial chemistry approaches, "has been instrumental in 
generating imaging agents capable of early detection in vivo of colon, pancreatic, lung and prostate 
cancers as well as specific targets in atherosclerosis and inflammation." According to the 
petitioner's work on these projects is highlighted in two articles. Both articles, however, were 
unpublished as of the date of filing. provides no examples of independent laboratories 
influenced by the petitioner's work. 
, a staff physician and postdoctoral research fellow at Children's Hospital, Boston, 
discusses her collaboration with the petitioner to select and identify unique bacteriophage clones that 
bind specifically to different zebrafish blood cell types. While affirms the future 
importance of this work and the petitioner's technical involvement, she does not explain how this 
work has already produced influential results. 
of the Cellular Imaging Pro ram at CMIR, discusses the petitioner's work 
on early detection methods for prostate cancer. g explains that the petitioner "used an 
iterative phage display selection approach to develop targeted imaging agents as a net prostate cancer 
biomarker to improve prostate cancer detection at an early stage." While works at CMIR 
where the petitioner performed his prostate cancer detection research, he claims that he learned of the 
petitioner's work thou h the 
 etitioner's publications, which postdate the filing of the petition. 
Ultimately, however, gconcludes only that the petitioner's work is "extremely promising" 
and "brings us one step closer to solving the puzzle for the cure of prostate cancer." - 
provides no examples of hospitals using an early detection tool that the petitioner helped develop or 
even independent laboratories that are pursuing such a tool, using the petitioner's research as their 
foundation. 
-1 an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, discusses his collaboration 
with the petitioner in developing a screening test for pancreatic cancer. 
 explains that 
the petitioner's work "was instrumental in the development of novel molecularly targeted imaging 
agents" and "led to the identification of membrane-localized plectin-1 as a potential new biomarker 
for pancreatic cancer." further asserts that the petitioner "successfully generated a 
multimodal nanoparticle-based targeted imaging agent" which has magnetic and fluorescent 
properties which homes specifically to cancer cells, enabling detection against the background of 
normal pancreas tissue or damaged but non-cancerous pancreas tissue. 
As of the date of filing, however this work was unpublished. Upon publication, an article in the 
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette mentions work among other ongoing work on pancreatic cancer 
in a larger article on this cancer. The online medical research review service Genome Technology 
also covered this work as utilizing proteomics to detect cancer. In addition, Nature Reviews Cancer 
also notes the potential of this research. As of the response to the director's request for evidence, the 
petitioner's work on pancreatic cancer detection had been cited in one article in addition to the 
Nature Reviews article. On appeal, the petitioner submits three additional citations, two of which are 
self-citations by The independent citation provided cites the petitioner's article only 
for the following proposition: "The use of antibodies to target interesting changes in molecular 
imaging is limited because of pharrnacokinetics, background noise, and difficulties attaching agents 
that are visible with magnetic resonance." 
The director's concern that the record lacked evidence of "widespread implementation" may be 
somewhat above what is required in this matter. Nevertheless, we find that the petitioner's 
publication and citation record, even considering the newer evidence, is not indicative of the 
petitioner's influence in the field to any significant degree. Counsel's concern that citations should 
not be the only evidence that can demonstrate an influence is valid. That said, other evidence of the 
petitioner's influence beyond his immediate circle of colleagues is lacking in this matter. 
The petitioner submitted letters from independent references. 
 a professor at the 
University of Missouri, praises the petitioner's novel use of iterative phage display to distinguish 
normal pancreatic cells from cancerous pancreatic cells using mouse models. She speculates that 
this work "will be developed into a sensitive non-invasive detection and diagnosis tool for pancreatic 
cancer at benign stages."notes that this work was highlighted in Nature Reviews 
Cancer. That review, however, while finding the work promising, concluded that it still needs to be 
refined so that it can be tested in patients. Discussing this work in the article in Genome Technology, 
acknowledges that "it's still a long way off from being in clinical trials." - 
does not claim to be influenced by the petitioner's work or provide examples of any independent 
laboratories pursuing cancer detection tools using the petitioner's research as their foundation. In 
fact, does not claim to have heard of the petitioner's work prior to the date of filing. 
an associate professor at the University of Virginia, asserts that he became 
acquainted with the petitioner's work through the petitioner's published articles, which postdate the 
filing of the petition. asserts that he found the petitioner's publications "particularly 
enlightening, not only from the standpoint of ha e dis lay technology, but also from the perspective 
of application in the biomedical sciences." concludes that the impact of the petitioner's 
work is evident from the fact that it was reviewed in Nature Reviews Cancer. That review article, 
however, is indicative of the promising nature of this work. The review article does not suggest that 
the petitioner's pancreatic cancer diagnostic review had already influenced the field. 
Program at the GE Global Research Center in Niskayuna, New York, asserts that the significance of the 
petitioner's research on a prostate cancer detection tool is evident from its publication in the Cancer 
Research Journal. As stated above, we will not infer the significance of an article from the journal in 
which it appeared. Significantly, while concludes that the petitioner's research benefits 
cancer researchers nationally and internationally, she does not imply that she or anyone else at GE 
Global Research Center is pursuing new diagnostic tools based on the petitioner's techniques. 
Finally, the Associate Director of Chemistry at Infinity Pharmaceuticals, asserts 
that the petitioner has "spearheaded new avenues toward early detection of prostate cancer." - 
describes the petitioner's work and concludes that it resulted in a "promising early diagnostic method 
for prostate cancer that may have application in the clinic in the future." does not suggest 
that she or anyone else at Infinity Pharmaceuticals is pursuing diagnostic tools based on iterative phase 
display or any other technique utilized by the petitioner. 
The record shows that the petitioner is respected by his colleagues and has made useful contributions 
in his field of endeavor. It can be argued, however, that any scientific research, in order to be 
accepted for publication, must present some potential benefit to the general pool of scientific 
knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who has contributed to research that is 
eventually published after the date of filing 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.