dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

(b)(6) U.S. Department of Homeland Securit y 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JUN Q 5 2014 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER FILE : 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptio nal Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U .S.C. § 1 153(b )(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrati ve Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions . If you belie ve the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration , you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen , respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form J-290B instructions at 
http ://www.uscis.gov/ form s for the late st information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosenbe 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before us at the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will dismiss 
the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification 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 seeks employment as a physician. When he filed the petition, the petitioner was a medical 
resident at the in Ohio. He later began a fellowship at 
in Nashville, Tennessee. The petitioner asserts that an 
exemptiOn trom the reqmrement or a JOD otter, and thus of a labor 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 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 legal statement. 
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 Attomey General may, when the Attomey 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 3 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), 
states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] 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. 
In reNew York State Dep't ofTransportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. Id. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish 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. at217-18. 
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. Id. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included 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. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(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 I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on June 5, 2012. The 
petition included an introductory legal statement that reads, in part: 
[The petitioner] is a brilliant surgeon with particular expertise in surgical oncology, 
laparoscopic (minimally invasive) and vascular surgery .... 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[E]ven among surgeons, just a few have the great experience and expertise to treat 
patients and perform major vascular surgery. . . . [The petitioner] researches and 
investigates the outcomes of open and minimally invasive surgeries, in addition to 
performing aortic aneurysm repairs; carotid endarterectomies and lower extremity 
bypass surgeries and teaching his fields of expertise .... 
[The petitioner] has been consistently recognized by top experts in this field. He has 
received prestigious awards, and his research has been published in leading journals 
and presented before prominent national and international conferences and meetings . 
. . . The world's leading experts acknowledge his unparalleled expertise in surgery . 
. . . [The petitioner's] expe1tise significantly improves health care and reduces 
hospital stays and medical costs .... 
In addition, [the petitioner] frequently diagnoses and treats patients from different 
parts of the country on referral. . . . Because he is able to perform such advanced 
procedures that only a very small percentage of his peers are able to perform, he is 
called on to treat patients from around the US. 
The record does not support all of the above claims. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Corroborated claims will receive due 
consideration, but the introductory statement submitted with the petition has no evidentiary weight. 
The introductory legal statement indicates that the petitioner "is one of the handful of surgeons 
across the nation who have expertise in Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery ... which defines the 
cutting edge of minimally invasive surgery available today." The petitioner has not documented the 
number of surgeons qualified to perform this procedure, and there is no indication that the petitioner 
developed or significantly modified the procedure. An alien's job-related training in a new method, 
whatever its importance, cannot be considered to be an achievement or contribution comparable to 
the innovation of that new method. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221 n. 7. 
The introductory statement establishes the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's occupation, and the 
national scope of the benefit from his published and presented work. Regarding the third prong of 
the NYSDOT national interest test, the petitioner's introductory legal statement presented the 
assertion that "[l]abor certification prohibits a job offer that includes a combination of occupations. 
See 69 Fed Reg 247 at 77394." The cited entry in the Federal Register promulgated a final rule issuing 
new Department of Labor regulations governing labor certification. The relevant regulation does not 
match the description in the petitioner's legal statement. Specifically, the regulation at 20 C.P.R. 
§ 656.17(h)(3), which appears on the cited page of the Federal Register, reads: 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
If the job opportunity involves a combination of occupations, the employer must 
document that it has normally employed persons for that combination of occupations, 
and/or workers customarily perform the combination of occupations in the area of 
intended employment, and/or the combination job opportunity is based on a business 
necessity. Combination occupations can be documented by position descriptions and 
relevant payroll records, and/or letters from other employers stating their workers 
normally perform the combination of occupations in the area of intended employment, 
and/or documentation that the combination occupation arises from a business necessity. 
The quoted regulation does not state, as counsel claimed, that "[l]abor certification prohibits a job offer 
that includes a combination of occupations." Rather, combination occupations are acceptable, provided 
the employer is able to meet one of the specified conditions. The assertion that physicians do not 
routinely engage in teaching or research does not take into account the faculty of medical schools, for 
whom such duties would appear to be routine. 
When the petitioner filecl the petition, he was a resident at a medical school, with clinical, research, and 
teaching duties. documentation in the record shows that the petitioner's residency program in 
general surgery "is a 
6 year program, 5 clinical, 1 research." The petitioner's mandatory participation in 
research during his residency does not mean that the petitioner will continue to engage in research after 
his training is complete. Electronic mail messages from recruiters discussed various employment 
opportunities. The job descriptions did not mention research, and therefore the recruiters' messages do 
not demonstrate demand for the petitioner's services as a researcher. 
The petitioner submitted several letters with the petition. Professor stated: 
"I would estimate that [the petitioner] is in the top 1% of surgeons in education, experience, 
intelligence and character." Describing the petitioner's treatment of a patient with "a 
'ganglioneuroma,' a rare nerve cell tumor," Prof. claimed: "Very few surgeons have 
experience in removing such tumors." 
Professor chair of the Department of Surgery at asserted that the 
petitioner "is a master diagnostician and has been known as one from the start of his career. He has 
unparalleled expertise in performing complex procedures in the care of cancer patients, especially 
with lung, breast, pancreatic, and gastric cancer." Prof. described the petitioner's 
diagnosis and treatment of a patient for whom "only 2 similar cases have been reported in English 
medical literature over the last 150 years." 
Professor now at was formerly an associate 
professor at the where the petitioner earned his 
master's degree in public health from 2005 to 2007. Prof. stated that the petitioner 
participated in research projects concerning hypertension, diabetes, breast cancer, and "Health 
Perceptions and Status." Prof. did not explain how these projects relate to the petitioner's 
subsequent work in laparoscopic surgery, and the record does not indicate that the petitioner will 
perform future research on those subjects. Prof. has served in departments of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
epidemiology and obstetrics and gynecology; she claimed no expertise in surgery and provided no 
information about the petitioner's work after he left the in 2007. 
Other witnesses work at various medical schools in the United States. Professor 
chief of the Division of Head and Neck and Skull Base Surgery at the 
stated: 
[The petitioner] is a master of the most advanced and complex medical technologies 
in the area of minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic surgery. His 
experience with advanced procedure[s] such as Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery 
is matched by only a handful of his peers in the country. In fact, he is one of the elite 
corps of surgeons that have attained thi~; high level of expertise .... [The petitioner] is 
at the forefront of his field because of his breadth and depth in employing specialized 
techniques in laparoscopic surgery. 
Dr. assistant professor at stated that the 
petitioner "has produced groundbreaking research findings" but did not 
describe those findings or 
discuss their significance. Dr. focused on a video presentation in which the petitioner described 
how he "performed a one step laparoscopic band removal and conversion to a sleeve gastrectomy." 
Dr. stated: "I would estimate that he is one of at most a dozen or so physicians in the United 
States today with this type of expertise," but cited no evidence to support this estimate. 
Professor of claimed that the 
petitioner "is recognized as a leading academic" and "a nationally-recognized leader in surgery 
[who] has served in critical roles reserved for leaders in the field .... [H]e is House Staff to one of 
the nation's leading institutions in categorical surgery." The Qetitioner's house staff position as a 
resident is, by definition, a training position, as attested by documents in the record. Prof. 
claimed that the petitioner's "medical research prowess is well-known throughout the 
medical community and has had significant impact in the advancement of our medical knowledge," 
but he did not elaborate or identify any specific contributions that the petitioner has made. Prof. 
works in the Neurology department, and does not claim expertise or training in the 
petitioner's 
specialty of laparoscopic and vascular surgery. 
Dr. , associate professor at stated that the petitioner 
"is recognized for his competency in vascular, minimally invasive, and cancer surgery." Dr. 
did not elaborate on this point, focusing instead on statistics regarding foreign medical graduates, the 
reputations of the institutions where the petitioner has studied, and the importance of the type of 
public health research that the petitioner conducted while studying at the 
The petitioner submitted background materials about a shortage of surgeons in parts of the United 
States. Such a shortage is not grounds for a national interest waiver under NYSDOT, because the 
labor certification process exists to verify that qualified U.S. workers are unavailable for a given 
position. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 21 8. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act makes the waiver 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
available to certain physicians in government-designated underserved areas, but the physician 
sh01iage waiver is available only under specific conditions spelled out in the statute and in the 
USCIS regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.12. The petitioner has not met those conditions. Rather, he has 
submitted copies of newspaper articles about shortages in various parts ofthe country. 
The petitioner submitted documentation of his participation in peer review. This evidence shows 
that, in mid-October of 2011, the petitioner contacted several publishers and volunteered as a peer 
reviewer. The record includes a printout of an October 13, 2011 electronic mail message from the 
petitioner to the editors of the journal stating: "I would be thankful if you will consider me 
for the role of a reviewer for This experience will be an invaluable supplement to my 
clinical training as I embark on an academic career." A reply indicated that the journal added the 
petitioner to the journal's "list of reviewers." 
The record also contains a printout of an October 12, 2011 electronic mail message from an editor at 
the The subject line of the message reads: "FW: Request tor info 
about the Journal; Inquiry about becoming a reviewer for the Journal." This subject line indicates 
that the petitioner had made such an inquiry, although the record does not contain the petitioner 's 
initial message. The record indicates that, in the second week of October 2011, the petitioner 
volunteered to serve as a peer reviewer for at least two journals. The record does not specify the 
journals' respective minimum requirements for peer reviewers, or that any journal sought the 
petitioner's services as a peer reviewer (rather than accepting offers from the petitioner himself). 
The petitioner submitted four exhibits under the heading "Material about the alien in print or 
electronic media." The first exhibit is an article from a campus publication of the 
at Brownsville and The article is not about the 
petitioner's work. Rather, as its title indicates, "International students face challenges" is "a closer 
look at ... international students." The article includes a quotation from the petitioner, explaining 
why he chose to study at the university. 
The next two exhibits both appeared in India in mid-1999, before the petitioner's 18th birthday. One 
exhibit appears to be an advertisement in naming the petitioner one of the 
The other exhibit, "which appeared in the 
Monthly Newsletter of the ' reported the petitioner's score "in the 
' because the petitioner's father worked for the company that 
published the newsletter. 
The fourth and final exhibit submitted as "r m·laterial about the alien in print or electronic media" is a 
copy of a 2010 article from the journal The petitioner is not a credited author 
of the article. The article's concluding paragraph lists several individuals and organizations and 
thanks them "for their invaluable assistance with the project." The petitioner was one of 17 named 
"study staff ' for the project. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
The petitioner submitted copies of his published articles and printouts of electronic slides from his 
presentations. Under the heading "Evidence that the Alien's Work Has Been Cited," the petitioner 
submitted a copy of one citing article. 
The director issued a request for evidence on February 11, 2013. The director instructed the 
petitioner to show that the benefit from his intended employment will be national in scope; to submit 
copies of articles that cite his published work; and to establish the extent of his influence on his field. 
The petitioner's response does not show that he continues to perform the laparoscopic and vascular 
surgery which had formed the original basis for the waiver anplication. Rather, Professor 
chair of the Department of Plastic Surgery at stated: "[The petitioner] was recruite 
by our department in July 2012 as a fellow in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery." Prof. -- - -~­
praised the petitioner's "expertise in laparoscopic surgery, vascular surgery and cancer surgery," but 
did not indicate that the petitioner's duties at included those types of surgery. A legal 
statement accompanying the petitioner's response indicates that the petitioner "specializes in burn 
surgery, hand surgery, cleft lip and cleft palate surgeries." 
The petitioner submitted seven letters with the response to the request for evidence. Two of the 
witnesses, Prof. and Dr. chief of plastic surgery at the Department of 
focused on the petitioner's plastic surgery 
work. The petitioner had not done this work prior to the petition's filing date. An applicant or 
petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the 
benefit request. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). USCIS 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). 
assistant professor at the stated that 
the petitioner "was a lead contributor" to "the study entitled . . 
"presented at a conference in 2008. The record 
establishes that the petitioner has participated in research as part of his ongoing training. This 
participation in what the record suggests is a routine element of medical training does not distinguish 
the petitioner from other medical trainees. 
The remaining witnesses claimed that the petitioner's past work has influenced their own work. 
Prof. in his second letter, described work that the petitioner did in 2009, analyzing 
omissions and errors in patients' medical records. Prof. stated: "I apply the findings of his 
research to my own practice and I make it a point to always confirm the information contained in the 
medical record with the patient." The record does not show that the petitioner innovated the practice 
of confirming information in medical records, or that the petitioner's 2009 presentation on the 
subject has significantly reduced the problem. 
Prof. also stated that, in "a manuscript ... that [the petitioner] is currently working on," 
the petitioner "has made a compelling argument to revise guidelines for use of warfarin in the elderly 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
population which is likely to initiate a nationwide debate upon publication." Speculation about the 
eventual result of a now-unfinished manuscript is not evidence of the demonstrable impact that the 
petitioner's work had already had on the field as of the petition's filing date. 
Dr. assistant professor at discussed a paper that the 
petitioner wrote on hydatid cyst disease. Dr. stated: "[The petitioner 's] excellent paper has 
allowed me to offer the most appropriate treatment to these patients." 
Dr. assistant professor at the credited 
the petitioner with "a revolutionary new technique to treat a debilitating complication after weight­
loss surgery .... [The petitioner] successfully demonstrated, for the first time anywhere in the world 
(as mentioned in his paper) that one step surgery with [gastric] band removal and conversion to a 
sleeve gastrectomy ... can be performed safely ... with minimally invasive techniques." Dr. 
assistant professor at the asserted that the technique 
described above "is of tremendous benefit for patients around the world." Dr. claimed that 
the petitioner's "technique has ... been adopted by numerous surgeons worldwide." 
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." ld. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The witness letters in the record are not without weight and have received consideration 
above. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). However, 
users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. ld. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. USeiS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The letters considered above contain claims that the petitioner is a widely recognized and highly 
influential figure in the field of surgery. The record lacks independent documentary evidence to 
corroborate the claims in the witness letters. For instance, the petitioner has submitted copies of 
articles from medical journals, but these materials do not show that the petitioner pioneered a new 
surgical procedure combining gastric band removal and sleeve gastrectomy in a single operation. 
The petitioner documented five citations to his published work, including the one citation 
documented previously. The petitioner also documented citations of two articles that he did not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
write, but which identify him in their respective "Acknowledgements" sections. Citation of these 
articles is not tantamount to citation of the petitioner's own published work. Statements from 
authors of the articles and purport to show that the 
petitioner was a major contributor to the research projects described in the articles, but their 
statements, solicited specifically to support the petition, do not outweigh or explain the omission of 
the petitioner's name from the author credits on the articles. The evidence, on balance, indicates that 
the petitioner had some involvement in the projects as a physician, but that others conducted the 
actual research that led to the publications. 
The director denied the petition on December 5, 2013. The director concluded that the petitioner's 
occupation has substantial intrinsic merit, but that the petitioner had not met the other two prongs of 
the NYSDOT national interest test. The director found that the petitioner had not established that his 
intended work as a surgeon would produce benefits that are national in scope, and that the 
petitioner's nationally published research has been, in comparison, a secondary endeavor. The 
director also found that the petitioner had not established a degree of impact or influence on the field 
as a whole that would justify approval of the waiver. 
The legal statement submitted on appeal notes that the petitioner "is a peer-reviewer for [three] 
medical periodicals." The record does not establish the significance of this activity, and it does not 
establish that there are any significant requirements for such work beyond familiarity with the 
subject matter. 
The appellate statement adds that the petltwner has produced several published articles and 
conference presentations. The record demonstrates that participation in research is an integral part 
of the petitioner's ongoing medical training. Evidence of the articles' existence is not evidence of 
their influence. The messages from recruiters show that employers seek the petitioner's services as a 
physician and surgeon, but not as a researcher. 
The appeal contains the assertion that the petitioner "is highly respected for his clinical and teaching 
work in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. The testimonials submitted from lead experts 
in this country both with the original application as well as with the response to the request for 
evidence documented his outstanding clinical reputation." The original petition contained no 
reference to plastic and reconstructive surgery, because the petitioner did not begin that fellowship 
until after he filed the petition. The witness letters have received due consideration, but the record 
does not support many of the claims in those letters (and the petitioner has not shown that the 
witnesses are "lead experts" as claimed on appeal). The absence of corroboration diminishes the 
weight of the witnesses' claims. See Jvfatter ofSo.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that his influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§ION 
Page II 
field of endeavor." !d. at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole."). 
As is clear from 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 approv,ed labor certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.