dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Neurobiology

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PtmLICCOPY 
DATE: MAY 0 tJ 2'l.~~~ Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
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 
FILE: 
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. § 1 1 53(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. § 103.5. 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 $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
;:. Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to 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 staff' research associate. 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 the classification 
sought, but that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer 
would be in the national interest ofthe United States. 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief. For the reasons discussed below, the AAO upholds the director's 
determination that the petitioner has not established his eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. --
(A) In general. -- Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively 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 Bachelor of Medicine from Tongji Medical University and a Master of Science 
from Qingdao University's Medical College. The petitioner submitted an evaluation equating this 
education to a Doctor of Medicine Degree and a Master of Science Degree in Medical Science. 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. 
Page 3 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress 
did not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest 
by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(lMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national 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 o/New York State Dep't. o/Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215,217-18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), has set forth several factors that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
must consider when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show 
that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Id at 217. Next, the petitioner 
must show 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 217-18. 
It must be noted that, 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 subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the 
national interest cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The AAO uses the term 
"prospective" 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 AAO concurs with the director that the petItIOner works in an area of intrinsic merit, 
neurobiology, and that the proposed benefits of his work, improved understanding of learning and 
memory, 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, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) generally does 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 
Page 4 
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 221. 
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. /d. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, the AAO notes 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. 
The petitioner submitted evidence that he is a member of the Society for Neuroscience (SFN). 
Professional memberships are one type of evidence that may be submitted to establish exceptional 
ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). Because exceptional ability, by itself, does not justify a waiver of 
the alien employment certification requirement, arguments hinging on professional memberships, while 
relevant, are not dispositive to the matter at hand. Id. at 222. The record contains no evidence that 
SFN membership is indicative of an influence in the field. 
The petitioner also submitted eight published articles and a manuscript in press. Only three of the 
published articles relate to the petitioner's current research on synapses. The article in press had yet to 
appear in print as of the date of filing, the date as of which the petitioner must establish his eligibility. 
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). On 
appeal, counsel asks that the AAO "identify a rule of law or rule of regulation that has set up a specific 
number of citations that will be accepted as evidence to prove impact on a field of endeavor." As 
implied by the request, no such statute or regulation exists. That said, it is the petitioner's burden to 
demonstrate his influence in the field. Notably, the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook 
Handbook, (OOH), available at http://\\<'Ww.bls.gov/oco/ocos047.htm#training (accessed May 5, 2011 
and incorporated into the record of proceeding), provides that a solid record of published research is 
essential in obtaining a permanent position in basic biological research. While publication may 
demonstrate dissemination of the petitioner's work, publication alone does not establish the ultimate 
influence of that work. The petitioner must establish the ultimate impact of his publications. In 
considering the evidence, the AAO looks not only to citations but the evidence of record as a whole. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted evidence that 
his 2008 article in Current Biology had garnered four citations, three of which postdate the filing of 
the petition. The petitioner also submitted evidence that his 2007 article in the same journal had 
garnered nine citations. Four of these citations are self-citations by the petitioner or a coauthor. 
While self-citations are a normal and expected practice, they cannot establish the petitioner's 
influence beyond his immediate circle of collaborators. Of the five remaining independent citations, 
only one lists a copyright date earlier than 2009. The petitioner filed the petition on March 23,2009. 
The petitioner has not established that any of the four independent articles citing his work in 2009 
predate the filing of the petition. The AAO will not consider any citations that postdate the filing of 
the petition. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
All of the case law relating to establishing eligibility as of the priority date focuses on the policy of 
preventing petitioners from securing a priority date in the hope that they will subsequently be able to 
demonstrate eligibility. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1977); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; see also Matter of /zummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 
(Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that 
USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") 
Consistent with these decisions, a petitioner cannot secure a priority date in the hope that his recently 
published research will subsequently prove influential. 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. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257,261 (4th Cir. 2008). 
In light of the above, the record establishes that, as of the date of filing, two of the petitioner's 
articles had garnered one independent citation each. While there is no particular number of citations 
that is persuasive, two articles having garnered one citation each is not a citation record that, by 
itself, is indicative of an influence on the field as a whole. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director did not give sufficient weight to the review articles in the 
record. Initially, the petitioner submitted a Research Highlight in Nature Reviews Neuroscience that 
reports on the petitioner's article in Current Biology. The petitioner submitted evidence about Nature 
Reviews Neuroscience from Wikipedia. With regard to information from Wikipedia, there are no 
assurances about the reliability of the content from this open, user-edited internet site.! See Lamilem 
Badasa v. Michael Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 2008). The petitioner also submitted information 
about the journal from its own website. This information reveals that the journal publishes Research 
Highlights, Progress, Reviews, Analysis and Perspectives. The journal publishes approximately 10 
Research Highlights each month "along with 6-10 'In Brief items that provide a concise description 
1 Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with 
an Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily 
been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or 
reliable information .... Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The 
content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone 
whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/Wikipedia:GeneraJ disclaimer, accessed on May 5, 2011, a copy of which is 
incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
Page 6 
of an additional group of significant papers." The in-house editorial journal team authors these 
highlights. Significantly, Progress Articles focus on "current papers of outstanding interest that are 
setting new standards in the field." The journal reviewed the petitioner's work in a Research 
Highlight rather than a Progress Article. 
The petitioner also submitted a review in Current Biology also reviewing the petitioner's earlier 
article in that publication in addition to other articles analyzing sensorimotor synapses. The review 
confirms that the petitioner's work was novel and challenged previous sensorimotor synapse models. 
The review, however, appears in the same issue of Current Biology as the petitioner's follow up to 
the article discussed in the review. It appears that the journal was merely placing the petitioner's 
work in the context of his earlier work. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted an article in Science Daily that quotes the petitioner's supervisor, 
_ at length about his research on memory and learning by studying sea snails. 
~ he has been pursuing such research for 25 years. The article mentions the 
results tioner and others reported in Current Biology but does not name any 
The above reviews demonstrate that editors deemed the research in which the petitioner participated as 
promising. Any research, however, in order to be accepted for publication or funding, must offer 
new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. It does not follow that every researcher who 
performs original research that adds to the general pool of knowledge inherently serves the national 
interest to an extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. These reviews do not 
demonstrate the ultimate impact of the petitioner's research. 
The record establishes that the petitioner has experience with certain techniques. 
the petitioner's the·· of California, Los 
Angeles (UCLA), asserts that the petitioner works there at a salary of 
$39,468 and that his responsibilities include "making cell culture, performing electrophysiological 
experiment, analysis of experimental records, immunostaining and image analysis, and preparation 
of scientific figures and manuscript." 
affirms that the petitioner "has mastered a wide variety of the experimental 
of neuroscience, including electrophysiology, the fabrication of primary cell cultures 
of neurons, pharmacological techniques, microinjection of neurons, immunohistochemistry and cell 
imaging." concludes that the petitioner's combination of skills, "although 
unusual, is critical for cutting edge research in the field of modem neuroscience." Simple training in 
advanced technology or unusual knowledge, while perhaps attractive to the prospective U.S. employer, 
can be articulated on an application for alien employment certification and does not inherently meet the 
national interest threshold. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
Page 7 
The remaining evidence consists of reference letters. While some of the references provide details 
about their credentials, they did not include their curriculum vitae. On appeal, counsel asserts that the 
director did not give sufficient weight to these letters. The AAO will address these letters at length. 
of the 
the petitioner studied gene therapy for oral tumors at the Affiliated Ninth 
Jiao Tong University's School of Medicine. _plains that the petitioner 
inhibited the tumor growth of tongue squamous cell 
carCInoma. this work "provided an attractive and innovative to the 
treatment of ' and that the petitioner received a 
••• for this work. ~rovides no examples of hospitals or clinics treating oral cancer based on 
the petitioner's work and the record lacks the 2002 award. Going on record without supporting 
documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these 
proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter o/Treasure Craft 
o/California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'. Comm'r. 1972)). Moreover, the petitioner has not explained 
how this work relates to the petitioner's current research on synapses. 
In addition to discussing the petitioner's technical skills, _ provides information about the 
petitioner's research at UCLA. explai~etitioner focuses on long-term 
sensitization involved in long-term memory. further explains that long term facilitation 
(L TF), a persistent enhancement of synaptic connections, is one of the cellular mechanisms that 
underlie long-term sensitization. asserts: "Unexpectedly, [the petitioner] has discovered 
that changes in the . neuron (the motor neuron) also plays a major role in LTF." More 
specifically, that the petitioner demonstrated that the increase in expression of the 
presynaptic sensorin, critical to L TF, is regulated by postsynaptic calcium. 
discusses the petitioner's work with intermediate-term facilitation (ITF). • 
"'''''-'''U''''' that unlike LTF, ITF does not involve gene transcription and, thus, does not persist 
for more than a few hours. that the petitioner "and his colleagues" demonstrated 
that ITF requires rapid protein synthesis within processes of the postsynaptic motor neuron. 
In addition, according to the petitioner "and his colleagues" investigated the role of 
"postsynaptic PKC to . facilitation." ~her states that the 
petitioner "has shown that long-term neuronal hyperexcitability - another learning-related cellular 
mechanism of plasticity - which can be induced in [the sea snail (Aplysia)] sensory neurons by 
serotonin, also depends on a signal from the postsynaptic motor neurons." Finally, 
asserts that the petitioner "and his colleagues" used a used a single-cell model to demonstrate 
importance of growth factors and protein kinases in producing long-term changes in neuronal 
excitability . 
Page 8 
Dr. Glanzman concludes: 
The research findings of [the petitioner], summarized above, are of critical importance 
for our understanding learning and memory, and represent ground-breaking, creative 
work. [The petitioner's] exciting discoveries have yielded new insights into the 
mechanisms of learning- and injury-related neural plasticity, and will stimulate new 
experiments and ideas in the field, such as the involvement and identification [of] the 
retrograde signal(s) that [are] involved in LTF. 
~en lists the petitioner's publications and presentations and further concludes that the 
petitioner's findings "will advance our understanding of the basic cellular mechanisms of learning and 
memory in the human brain" that will subsequently lead to new treatments for age and disease related 
memory loss. . about the petitioner's future influence in the field are highly 
speculative. not explain how the petitioner's work is already being applied by 
independent laboratories. 
In a second letter, asserts that the petitioner contributed to 
grant application under the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act. asserts that only 
four percent of applications were funded under this program. also notes a second grant 
application with the National Institute of Mental Health well but not high enough 
for funding. Not every alien working with a government grant inherently serves the national interest 
to an extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. At issue is the ultimate impact of the 
research once completed and disseminated. 
The petitioner also provided a very similar letter from 
also fails to provide examples of ma.ept!naem 
Rather, he concludes generally that the petitioner's findings 
understanding of learning and memory and its disorders." 
conclusory assertions. 2 
another professor atr­
using the petitioner's results. 
"are of utmost importance for our 
USeIS need not accept primarily 
professor at previously 
research in regarding the 
petitioner's various investigations. asserts that the petitioner had three manuscripts in 
preparation. As the petitioner had yet to work, it cannot demonstrate his eligibility as of the 
date of filing. ~tes the petitioner's most recent research and states that "these findings 
might eventually be exploited to identify therapeutic targets that would be relevant to neuronal injury in 
the vertebrate central nervous system." This statement, however, is highly speculative. 
2 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 9 
an assistant professor at the 
of the petitioner's work as 
(grammar as it appears in the original): 
These creative, ground-breaking works are utmost importance and represent new 
advance in the field of learning and memory. The research findings of [the petitioner] 
will advance our understanding of the basic cellular mechanisms of learning and 
memory in all brains, including human brains. 
_hen predicts that the research community's improved understanding will lead to treatments 
~mer's Disease. are highly speculative and fail to explain how 
independent research teams are already applying the petitioner's work. does not suggest that 
the petitioner's work has influenced Dr. Ming's research. 
learned of the petitioner's work while editing a bulletin. 
work on L TF and ITF is almost verbatim the 
that the petitioner's work on ITF has "attracted significant attention." 
review that also appeared in Curre~lacing the petitioner's new 
context of his previous work. ~oes not explain how this 
"significant attention." i concludes: 
~AW'HI-'-'''' is the 
journal in the 
single review constitutes 
[The petitioner's] work has provided novel insights into learning-related plasticity and 
formed a basis for the design of therapeutic agents to treat a variety of diseases that 
affect memory, such as age-related memory loss, as well as a number of 
neuropsychiatric disorders, including anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress 
disorder." 
_then asserts that the petitioner enjoys international recognition and acclaim. The benefit 
sought does not require international recognition or acclaim. Nevertheless, if _s going to 
advance such as claim, he should provide credible support for the assertion. The record, however, does 
not support a finding that the petitioner enjoys international recognition and acclaim. While_ 
appears to be an independent witness, he does not affirm having ever applied the petitioner's work in 
his own work. 
Finally, an 
learned of the petitioner's work while attending his presentation at a national meeting. 
asserts that "there is a severe shortage of individuals trained in cellular electrophysiology." As stated 
above, the issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the u.s. is an issue under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. More specifically, _ 
_ asserts that the petitioner's work on L TF "forces us to rethink our models of how 
neurotrophin signaling and synaptic modification function during learning." ~her 
Page 10 
asserts that the petitioner's work on excitability "has necessitated a reevaluation of a decades-old 
model of how excitability is determined in these neurons." . that the petitioner's 
work is "at a very basic level" but that the greater from his work has "great 
potential for the development of drugs that play vital roles clinically." does not identify 
~tical company that is contemplating new research based on the petitioner's discoveries. 
~oes not assert that he is applying the petitioner's work. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) 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 Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered 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 the AAO has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id at 795; see also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 
500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to 
"fact"). USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with 
other information or is in any way questionable. Id at 795; see also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of the significance of the petitioner's 
findings without providing specific examples of how those innovations have influenced the field. 
Merely repeating the legal standards does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 3 The petitioner 
also failed to submit sufficient corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the 
petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
Ultimately, the petitioner, a staff research associate, had authored three articles on synapses as of the 
date of filing, none of which had garnered significant citation as of that date. While the reference 
letters and reviews suggest that the petitioner's work is novel and has potential, the record does not 
document a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a 
whole. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. 
3 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 
(D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 11 
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. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.