dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nephrology

'identif~in~ data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
W-ashtnton. DC 20529.2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
'AU6 2 201 
IN RE: 
 Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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 1 153(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 be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $585. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a physician specializing in nephrology (the field of medicine related to 
the kidney). At the time he filed the petition, the petitioner was a fellow at Saint Louis University 
(SLU) Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri. 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 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 statement from counsel. 
Section 203(h) 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 
Page 3 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 101 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 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. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Commr. 1998), 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. Next, it must 
be shown 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 U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest 
cannot sufice 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. 
We also note that the 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 offerilabor 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 July 1, 2009. In a statement submitted with the initial 
filing, counsel contended that the petitioner 
should not be required to go through the labor certification process, because this process 
is not able to take into consideration the unique skills that he has developed as a clinician 
Page 4 
and diagnostician, the tremendous national impact of the research work that is done, and 
the reputation that be] has sustained amongst his peers nationally. 
Elsewhere in the same statement, counsel claimed that the petitioner 
is an outstanding nephrologist at the top of his field with extraordinary abilities and 
talents which he has illustrated time and again through his significant work. 
Additionally, the support letters written on [the petitioner's] behalf show that [the 
petitioner] is one of the most talented nephrologists in the field nationally. 
We will consider the witness letters elsewhere in this decision. All of these assertions, and others in 
the record, contain claims of objective fact, for which the petitioner must provide impartial 
evidentiary support. 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 ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503,506 (BIA 1980). 
With respect to the petitioner's asserted expertise in nephrology, we refer to the petitioner's own 
curriculum vitae. The petitioner stated that his experience began with service on the house staff of 
- The petitioner referred to this period as "three years of 
training." The petitioner indicated that he served rotations in "general medicine," "intensive care unit," 
"cardiac care unit," "hematology and oncology," "neurology," "continuity clinic" and "ambulatory 
clinic." The petitioner briefly mentioned "kidney disease" in the context of a list of ailments, but did 
not claim that he served a rotation in nephrology or received any specialized training in that specialty. 
The petitioner's professional experience in nephrology appears to have begun in 2008, when he began 
his nephrology fellowship at SLU Hospital. As with his house staff service at St. Luke's Hospital, the 
petitioner referred to his fellowship as an "opportunity [for] getting trained." 
The petitioner submitted background information regarding a claimed shortage of nephrologists. A 
shortage of qualified workers in a given field, regardless of the nature of the occupation, does not 
constitute grounds for a national interest waiver. Given that the labor certification process was designed 
to address the issue of worker shortages, a shortage of qualified workers is an argument for obtaining 
rather than waiving a labor certification. See Matter ofNew York State Dept. of Transportation at 215, 
218. There exists a statutory provision at section 203(h)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for certain physicians when 
the Department of Health and Human Services has officially designated a shortage area, but the 
petitioner has made no attempt to follow the provisions set forth in that subsection of the Act, or to 
conform to the corresponding regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.12. 
The record contains five witness letters written in support of the petition in June 2009. Counsel stated 
that the letters are "from top experts in the fields from different parts of the country and the world." 
Only one witness is based outside of St. Louis, and all of the witnesses are based in the United States. 
The range of witnesses, therefore, does not lend support to the claim that the petitioner has earned a 
wider reputation. The wording of the letters - replete with claims that the petitioner is one of the 
nation's top nephrologists - indicates that they were originally written to support another petition, in 
Page 5 
which the petitioner sought classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. That petition, with receipt 
number was filed simultaneously with the present petition and denied on August 
21,2009. There is no record of an appeal of that denial. 
Three of the four St. Louis-based witnesses are on the SLU faculty. professor director 
of the Division of Nephrology in SLU's Department of Internal Medicine, stated: 
[The petitioner] has distinguished himself as an extremely talented physician. He came 
to our program highly recommended [by] colleagues in the field and has lived up to 
those recommendations. . . . 
[The petitioner] has an excellent fund of knowledge, which is growing rapidly. He takes 
excellent care of patients. . . . He has an excellent reputation as a teacher. . . . In addition, 
he has participated in our interventional nephrology program . . . and has become adept 
at all of the procedures in this discipline. . . . 
[The petitioner] has excelled at clinical and diagnostic applications of nephrology and 
contributes to active research in the field, which has resulted in several important 
publications, even at this stage of his career. 
Dr. - an associate professor of internal medicine, biochemistry and molecular 
biology at SLU, is also a staff physician and chief of nephrology at the St. Louis Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center. He stated: 
[The petitioner] is a highly skilled and competent clinician with excellent clinical 
judgment and expertise in the management of complex diseases of the kidney. During 
his training he has acquired the ability to manage patients with end stage renal disease 
that require dialysis and transplantation. He is also highly adept in managing critically 
ill veterans in the intensive care unit with acute kidney failure who require state of the 
art continuous dialysis therapies that are only performed in a select number of tertiary 
care institutions in the country. In addition to these sophisticated skills, [the petitioner] 
has acquired expertise in performing interventional nephrology procedures for vascular 
access management. . . . [F]ewer'tha[n] four percent of kidney specialists are trained to 
perform these critical interventions. . . 
Another important measure [of the petitioner's] outstanding qualification in this field is 
his success as a clinical teacher and researcher. His excellent teaching and supervision 
of medical students and resident physicians has contributed significantly to the training 
of future physicians in the United States. He has also demonstrated excellence as a 
nephrology researcher. He has been invited to present his findings at national and 
international meetings and was recognized for his accomplishments by being the 
recipient of several travel awards. 
Page 6 
Special or unusual knowledge or training, while perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. employer, 
does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers 
are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Matter of New 
York State Dept. of Transportation at 221. Also, the record contains no evidence to show that the 
petitioner's travel awards amounted to "recogni[tion] for his accomplishments" rather than a routine 
form of financial aid. 
The two letters quoted above consist mainly of restrained praise for the petitioner as a competent 
practitioner in his field. Other letters contain more extravagant claims regarding the petitioner's 
achievements and, particularly, his reputation. SLU ~rofessorstated: 
[The petitioner] is one of the most skilled nephrologists in the field today. . . . He has 
gained widespread recognition in the medical community for his treatment of patients 
suffering from a wide array of ailments. . . . 
Many physicians limit their work to a small, limited clinical field; others focus on 
research, teaching or administrative pursuits. [The petitioner] is one of a select group of 
physicians with experience in all of these areas, achieving a unique reputation for 
versatility bestowed upon only the best in the field. . . . [The petitioner's] research . . . 
focused on the potential role of extracellular calcium in the regulation of adrenal 
hormone secretion . . . is among the most important in all of medicine. 
~rofessorf washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis stated: 
I write this letter as a strong testament to the exceptional abilities of [the petitioner] as an 
alien of extraordinary ability at the vanguard of his field. . . . [H]e is truly one of the 
foremost nephrologists in the country today. 
[The petitioner] has achieved an extraordinary level of expertise as a physician that is 
rare in the U.S. medical community today. He has distinguished himself by being 
awarded leading roles at the country's top medical institutions. . . . 
No field of medicine is more difficult to appreciate, and yet so absolutely vital, as 
nephrology. Only the foremost physicians are able to dedicate themselves to such a 
difficult field, and very few are able to master it as [the petitioner] has done. . . . [Tlhere 
is a dearth of nephrologists in the United States today, and an even bigger shortage of 
nephrologists with expertise in diabetes treatment and end stage renal disease, like [the 
petitioner]. 
[The petitioner] is not only an extraordinary practitioner of nephrology, but he has also 
developed an expert reputation for his stellar teaching. . . . [The petitioner] is one of the 
elite nephrologists who has the extraordinary ability to diagnose the most complex 
conditions, even when other, more senior physicians, have failed to do so. 
Page 7 
Considering the nature of claims such as the above, it is not only reasonable but necessary to expect 
strong and specific documentary evidence in support of such claims. It cannot suffice to point to a 
particular medical procedure or conference presentation and declare it to be beyond the capabilities of 
most nephrologists. The assertion that the petitioner was already "one of the foremost nephrologists in 
the country," even before he completed his training in that specialty, strains credulity. Claims regarding 
the petitioner's national prominence cany significantly less weight when nearly all such claims are from 
St. Louis, where the petitioner practices. 
The only witness outside of St. Louis is Professorf the University of Arizona, who 
stated: 
[The petitioner] is one of the top nephrologists in the United States who has performed 
the most complex and cutting-edge procedures in the field to a degree unrivaled by the 
vast majority of his peers. 
I would estimate that [the petitioner] has attained a degree of expertise unmatched by 
even four percent of the most senior physicians in the field of nephrology. . . . He has 
played a leading role in important research studies that have been selected for 
publication and presentation at forums boasting international audiences. . . . 
[The petitioner] has distinguished himself in the field by demonstrating an uncanny 
ability to perform the most innovative diagnostic and treatment procedures related to 
nephrology. 
For the most part, prof. offered general assertions rather than specific examples. The only parts 
of his letter to contain specific details are a list of maladies that he treats (such as "end stage renal 
disease, diabetes, [and] hypertension") and the assertion that the petitioner "specializes in microscopic 
examination of urine, dialysis catheter placements . . . and kidney biopsy." 
We note that, while the petitioner as an independent witness, he cites the same 
"four percent" figure also found in Dr. Neither witness provided a source for this 
apparently arbitrary figure. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and we have considered them 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, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as we have done above, evaluate the content of those letters as 
to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give less weight to 
an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. 
Page 8 
Id. at 795; see also Matter ofSof$ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of 
Treasure Crafrof Calijornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of widespread recognition and vague 
claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and providing specific 
examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. The petitioner did not submit letters 
from independent references who affirm their own reliance on the petitioner's work or who were 
even simply familiar with his work through his reputation. The petitioner also failed to submit 
corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which could have 
bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
A section of the petitioner's initial submission bears the title "Selective and competitive honors and 
awards, memberships." The first exhibit is a letter from Dr. program director of 
residency in medicine at St. Luke's Hospital, indicating that the petitloner rece~ved four travel grants, 
worth between $200 and $500 each, between September 2005 and April 2008. The letter does not 
reveal the standards or requirements that one must meet to receive such grants. Therefore, there is no 
evidence that these grants are "honors and awards" rather than routine financial assistance for pursuit of 
educational activities. 
The same can be said of an "educational stipend of $500 to assist with attending the National Kidney 
Foundation's 2009 Spring Clinical Meetings," described in a letter from that foundation. In addition to 
the reference to an "educational stipend," another sign that the foundation considered the petitioner to 
be a trainee is the assertion, near the end of the letter, that "your next step in advancement is seeking 
employment." 
The next item identified as an honor, award or membership is a "Rank Card of EAMCET," which listed 
the following information: 
This card appears to be a report card, showing the petitioner's course grades or test scores and class 
rank. Counsel did not explain how this document constitutes an honor, award, or membership. 
Maximum 
Marks Secured 
None of the documents listed above appears to represent an honor or award. If these materials are the 
best available evidence of the petitioner's claimed standing in the field of nephrology, then we must 
consider that claim to be highly exaggerated. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted certificates of membership in the American Medical Association, the 
American Public Health Association, and the American Society of Nephrology. The petitioner 
submitted information about only the last of these associations. According to documentation in the 
record, "The American Society of Nephrology (ASN) is the world's largest organization dedicated to 
Biology 
100 
091.25 
Total 
200 
185.00 
Rank 
205 
Chemistry 
50 
046.25 
Physics 
50 
047.50 
Page 9 
the study and practice of nephrology." The petitioner did not explain how membership in an 
organization that accepts more members than any other in the field is a mark of distinction. 
In a section of the record marked "Material about the alien," the petitioner noted that he is "[llisted in 
the acknowledgements section of [an] article" published in Kidney & Blood Pressure Research. The 
petitioner was one of eleven people whom the authors thanked "for their technical expertise." The 
petitioner also noted that his name appears in what appear to be physician directories, and he asserted: 
"My response to a clinical question was mentioned in an online article. That article consisted of a 
"Case Vignette," followed by the question: "Given your knowledge of the condition and the points 
made by the experts, which treatment approach would you choose?"ere then follow brief comments 
from several dozen respondents, including the petitioner. This appears to be similar to innumerable web 
sites that permit readers to post comments relating to articles or other content on those sites. 
The petitioner appears to have submitted the above materials in an attempt to show that his work has 
attracted media attention. The materials, however, establish little except that the petitioner has been 
professionally active in his field. 
On August 21, 2009, the director issued a request for evidence, stating that the record shows the 
petitioner has "done some fine research work and patient care," but not that the petitioner "will present a 
benefit so great as to outweigh the national interest inherent in the labor certification process." The 
director also noted that the petitioner had submitted evidence of published research, but had not 
submitted citation data to show that others in the field have relied upon that research. 
In response, the petitioner submitted a printout from Google Scholar (htt~:/lscholar.eooele.com), 
showing seven results. The petitioner did not, however, limit the search to articles that identify him as 
an author. He simply searched for articles that contain both his first name and his surname, not 
necessarily together. Because of this broad search, four of the results do not refer to the petitioner at all; 
they coincidentally contained those two names in reference to other people. Two of the remaining three 
results refer to articles by the petitioner, but do not refer to any citations of those articles. 
The last remaining result of the Google Scholar search refers to an article with seven citations. The 
petitioner, however, is not an author of the cited article. Rather, the petitioner is one of at least six 
individuals whom the authors acknowledged "for their technical expertise." Citations of that article 
cannot reasonably be called citations of the petitioner's work. 
The petitioner submitted letters from officials of various scholarly journals, attesting to statistical 
information about those journals. The officials did not comment on the content or impact of the 
petitioner's work that had appeared in those journals. 
The petitioner submitted what he described as a "Letter explaining [the] impact of [his] previous work." 
In this letter, the petitioner indicated that he participated in the "conversion of 11 videodiscs (each of 
which contained an instructional video segment and hundreds of images of pathology for training 
medical students in fundamentals of pathology) to a World Wide Web-delivered system using a process 
Page 10 
for automated digital conversion of videodisc resources." The petitioner did not claim to have 
developed any of the video content. He claimed only to have helped to convert the format of existing 
materials. The petitioner also stated that he "created a digital library" of images, some of which have 
since been used for test preparation materials. The petitioner did not describe the nature of these images 
or his role in creating them (as opposed to making existing materials available online). We note that the 
petitioner performed this work while he was a graduate student at the University of Alabama. The 
descriptions of the materials do not mention nephrology, the specialty in which he is said to have earned 
widespread renown. 
Under the heading ''Independent testimonials evidencing importance of research work," the petitioner 
submitted several witness letters. All but one of these letters are nreviouslv written letters from 
individuals in St. Louis. The exception is a September 21, 2009 letter from Dr. 
emeritus professor at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota. 
claim to be an independent witness, as the petitioner has claimed. Rather, he stated: 
I have worked with [the petitioner] informally giving him advice on a patient of mutual 
interest in our specialty. . . . 
[The petitioner] has done a basic science project while at the University of Alabama in 
which he performed a meaningful study . . . in an attempt to find the cause of IgA 
neuropathy. . . . Therefore, [the petitioner's] work has contributed to a better 
understanding of this common disease. 
After identifying "a number of other important studies," Dr. stated that the petitioner "is 
dedicated to these ongoing worthwhile clinical research projects as he continues his training in clinical 
nephrology demonstrating his dedication to becoming a well-rounded physician in renal medicine." 
This last sentence shows that Dr. does not consider the petitioner to be a fully-trained 
physician, an opinion confirmed by his next sentence: "I believe [the petitioner] deserves permanent 
visa status to complete his training so he may become a viable contributing member of the medical 
profession in our country." 
The director denied the petition on October 19,2009, stating that the petitioner failed to establish that he 
is eligible for the national interest waiver. The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of 
several witness letters, but found that the record did not contain objective, documentary evidence to 
support the witnesses' claims. 
On appeal, counsel asserts: "The record indicates that his skills are so unique that it would not be fair to 
exempt hi[m] from the labor certification process" (sic). Presumably counsel means that it would not be 
fair not to exempt him. Counsel does not explain what in the record supports this conclusion. The vast 
bulk of the record appears to be little more than the standard work product of a physicianlresearcher, 
and such evidence cannot make up in volume what it lacks in significance. 
Page 11 
Counsel states that the petitioner is "able to master many of the most advanced procedures in the field 
and also to teach those procedures to peers, both junior and senior, thereby creating a ripple effect." 
The petitioner does not claim to have developed or refined these "advanced procedures" (which counsel 
does not identify specifically). We have already explained that simply learning an existing procedure is 
not grounds for a waiver. The argument is simply that, having learned the procedures himself, the 
petitioner can now teach them to others. Counsel does not explain how this distinguishes the petitioner 
from countless other medical students who, like the petitioner, take on some teaching duties even while 
completing their own professional training. Also, by counsel's logic, the credit could just as easily go to 
the petitioner's teachers as to the petitioner himself. 
Counsel claims that the petitioner "possesses . . . abilities that cannot be easily articulated by objective 
factors appearing in the labor certification process, but that can only be subjectively observed and 
respected by fellow physicians." As we have already noted, when we compare those letters to the 
objective evidence in the record, the claims in the letters are so inflated as to be unrealistic. Many of the 
letters contain the claim that the petitioner is one of the greatest nephrologists in the entire United 
States, but this reputation appears to have been completely unreported until the petitioner asked 
witnesses, mostly in St. Louis, for letters on his behalf. 
Counsel states: "we are again providing a summary of [the petitioner's] accomplishments in various 
relevant categories that demonstrate the national impact that his work has had." We can find no such 
summary in the record. 
The objective evidence of record portrays the petitioner as an active and skilled physician, pursuing 
ongoing professional training in nephrology. The record does not support the exaggerated claims of 
counsel and a handful of witnesses attesting to an alleged national reputation and widespread, yet ill- 
defined, impact in his specialty. We see no credible evidence in the record that would lead us to 
question the director's findings. We therefore agree with the director's decision to deny the petition. 
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. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. This decision is without prejudice to the 
filing of a new petition by a United States employer accompanied by a labor certification issued by the 
Department of Labor, appropriate supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed