dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Private Banking

(b)(6)
DATE : MAR 2 5 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrati ve Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts A ve., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-20 90 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed pleas e find the decision of the Administrative 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-prec edent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied curr ent Jaw 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 l-290B) within 33 
days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/fonns 
for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not 
file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Admini strative App eals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter 
is now before the AAO on appeal. The 
AAO 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 the defined equivalent of an 
advanced degree. The petitioner is the vice president of private banking at the office 
of 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 with 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to 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 a
ppeal, the petitioner submits an affidavit, a brief from counsel, and witness statements. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability.-
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who because 
of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit 
prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the 
United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought 
by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in the 
national interest , waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in 
the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions with progressive 
post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to an advanced degree under the U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 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 te1m "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-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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, P.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 of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Conun'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. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. 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. /d. at 217-18. 
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. !d. 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 tenn "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. !d. 
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 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on June 28, 2012. 
· - -----.--described the petitioner's duties: 
----------------------~----------
[The petitioner] is currently responsible for attracting and managing funds from high net 
worth customers to the bank's Fixed Income , Stock Markets and Currency Market 
products. He structures financial transactions[,] the coordination of document production 
and the design of pricing and distribution of security offers. He maintains and develops 
(b)(6)
P~ge 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
relationships with high net worth investors in Brazil and utilizes extraordinary skill to 
implement investment strategies and policies. 
In a statement accompanying the petition , counsel cited background evidence to establish the substantial 
intrinsic merit of intemational investment banking. Counsel stated that the benefit from the petitioner ' s 
work is national in scope because: "[i]n securing much-needed foreign capital and investment from high­
net-worth investors, the ENTIRE United States economy is impacted in a most positive way. These 
assets are infused into the financial markets and government bond sector and into the national economy." 
With respect to the third prong of the NYSDOT national interest test, counsel asserted that the petitioner 
"is recognized by worldwide leaders in every industry, including finance, business, govemment, and 
professional sports, as the top expert to consult when investing funds in the United States. He single­
handedly manages and continues to attract over 150 million dollars in investments , and is applauded as 
reaching the top level in his field ." 
The petitioner did not submit documentary evidence to support the claim that he "manages ... over 150 
million dollars in investments, " or to show how this figure compares to the portfolios managed by others 
in his field. With respect to corroborating evidence , counsel stated that the petitioner "owes a duty of 
confidentiality to his clients , and accordingly, his work is not written about in disseminated journals or 
periodicals." Counsel claimed that the petitioner "has influenced the way others within the field market 
their financial products to foreign investors." Counsel asserted that the petitioner has attracted funds to 
the United 
States that his clients would otherwise have invested overseas. 
Counsel claimed: 
[I]ndependent witnesses in [the petitioner's] field attest to the fact that his track record is 
not ordinarily found in the field, that it has led and continues to lead to sustained 
incoming investment for our country, and that he is looked to as an expert in the field -
his client-based building is emulated and he has influenced the way others within the 
field market their financial products to foreign investors. 
The petitioner submitted several letters with the petition, but none are from "independent witnesses in his 
field." One witness is the head of and the other witnesses are not currently employed in 
investment banking. Also, two of the witnesses identify themselves as the petitioner's clients. The 
letters, therefore, do not reflect the petitioner ' s reputation in the greater investment banking community. 
, stated: 
During these turbulent financial times, [the petitioner] is precisely the force .needed to 
continue our bank 's growth and our nation's recovery and predominance in the industry .. 
(The petitioner] combines his comprehensive understanding of Brazilian and 
international capital markets with a rare ability to convince investors and financial 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
institutions of his vision of the future of these markets. He has been a critical force in the 
increased participation of Brazilian financial investment in U.S. capital markets. He 
continues to add hundreds of millions to our own US based bank. In addition , by 
bringing in these amounts for our bank we are able to grow and, in turn, expand hiring, 
increase employment and opportunities for our current employees. 
The remaining witnesses praised the petitioner's work in very general terms. : 
currently a board member on the Regulatory Agency of Energy and Sanitation for the - ____ __j 
stated: 
As someone who regularly travels among industry and business leaders, I am able to 
confirm [the petitioner's] competent ability in the field of international investment 
management for high net worth investors, and especially, the client relationships he has 
built and grown with Brazilian individuals, businesses, and government agencies. [The 
petitioner] is an elite member in a most competitive field. Even during tumultuous 
financial times, [the petitioner] is praised as an expert. His solid ability in garnering the 
trust of the most discerning clients has brought hundreds of millions in investments to the 
u.s. 
"the largest producer of iron ore and the second largest 
mining company in the world," stated: 
, I meet with some of the top industrial leaders from around 
Brazil, Latin America and the world. [The petitioner] is the point of contact for many of 
these investors as he has amassed an elite reputation among them. 
[The petitioner] is well known among the leaders of industry in Brazil as the individual to 
turn to when investing in US financial markets and products. He receives the utmost 
praise for his special expertise in wealth management strategies in U.S. securities and 
other traditional U.S. financial instruments. He is trusted to protect wealth from the 
uncertainty of turbulent financial markets. As I am part of this investor group, I can attest 
to the high importance we place on personal relationships and trust. [The petitioner] is 
the trusted expert for the elite investor class with whom he deals. Through these 
relationships, he has attracted investment for the U.S., even throughout these difficult 
financial times. 
(The petitioner] is especially admired for his understanding of the motivation guiding his 
client 's international investments. He uniquely comprehends the uncertainty and fragility 
that is characteristic of Latin American financial systems. 
(Emphasis in original.) 'tated: 
I am a retired professional soccer player. . .. After reaching the top of the league, many 
players like myself look to prudently invest large amounts of money, frequently reaching 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
tens of millions of dollars. [The petitioner's] reputation in investments among league 
players in Brazil is akin to what a top soccer player's reputation would be in the sports 
world. His name is the one that is mentioned when large-scale investments need to be 
made and his advice is revered. 
When I began my search for a financial advisor, I looked for guidance not only from 
other top professional athletes in Brazil, but also to high level individuals in business and 
finance with whom I had come into contact over my career. They consistently sent me to 
[the petitioner]. He is the expert in the field to whom the investors at the top of their field 
turn for advice in their investments . 
. . . It is solely because of his expertise that I decided to shift my investments from Brazil 
to financial markets and products in the United States. He has proven to me and 
countless others over and over he is able to obtain returns and security where others fail. 
(Emphasis in original.) The witness letters all contain broad assertions that the petitioner is a well­
regarded expert in his field, but the letters do not provide specific, verifiable evidence of the petitioner's 
impact on his field. Providing investment advice appears to be a core element of the petitioner's 
occupation rather than an influential contribution that distinguishes the petitioner from others in his field, 
and the petitioner submitted no documentary evidence that would permit an objective comparison 
between himself and others in his field. Client satisfaction is not impact or influence on the field as a 
whole. 
The director issued a request for evidence on December 29, 2012, stating: 
You provided four testimonial letters from ... employers [and] clients who have invested 
with the beneficiary. While the authors of the letters all speak in compl[i]mentary terms 
regarding the beneficiary , none specifically identify the beneficiary 's work in his field or 
any contributions which he has made to the field as a whole. Furthermore, the petitioner 
provided no documentary evidence demonstrating any demonstrable achievement made 
by the beneficiary, a methodology pioneered by the beneficiary, or any innovation 
developed by the beneficiary which has influenced or impacted his field .... 
The petitioner must establish that he has a past record of specific prior achievement with 
some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
In response, counsel maintained that many investors have moved their investments from Brazil to the 
United States based solely on the petitioner's advice and efforts, and that, without the petitioner, "these 
investments might be placed elsewhere. ;, Counsel stated: "One readily acknowledges that depriving a 
U.S. employer of hundreds of millions of dollars in the aggregate would be contrary to our national 
interest." Counsel cited NYSDOT in support of the following claim: 
It is not necessary to prove that the petitioner intends to convey his private banking 
techniques to others in his field, but rather, by a preponderance of the evidence, it is 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
necessary to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the petitioner serves the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than a U.S. worker with the same 
minimum qualifications. 
NYSDOT calls for "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole." !d. at 219 n.6. Although counsel did not acknowledge this requirement, counsel stated 
that the petitioner "nevertheless influences other investment managers in the field. The fact that top 
international financial experts also believe that [the petitioner] is an expert in his field must be given 
weight by USCIS." Counsel, here, appeared to equate expertise in the field with influence in the field. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expe1tise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given field. Foreign workers possessing such a 
degree of expertise remain subject to the statutory job offer requirement. Therefore, expertise is not a 
sufficient basis for approving the national interest waiver. 
Counsel contended that the petitioner "has achieved an elite level in his field that few on an international 
scale have achieved, bringing hundreds of millions of dollars in Latin American investments to the U.S. 
economy." The petitioner provided no documentary evidence either to corroborate the figures claimed 
or to support the claim that few international bank executives with comparable responsibilities have 
matched his achievement. 
The petitioner submitted two additional witness letters. 
stated: 
. identified as a senior 
[The petitioner] is known as a top producer for his employer. When compared to others 
in the industry, proportionally , [the petitioner's] production far outpaces financial 
managers throughout the country .... His extraordinary percentage of production is well 
known within the industry. 
[The petitioner's] past accomplishments are one of the reasons his processes for attracting 
new clients and wealth to the United States are well known among international financial 
experts who manage and invest money from abroad . He is regularly turned to for advice 
by others within his group and his work is emulated by investment advisors interested in 
increasing their amounts under management. ... As many in the industry have done, I 
too have emulated his practices. These changes that [the petitioner] was the first to 
employ in the way financial managers attract clients have altered the way out part of the 
industry operates . 
. . . [H]is reputation is such that it spans the globe, as evidenced by his past track record 
of success in the industry. 
letter also includes a passage identical to counsel's earlier introductory letter: "[the 
petitioner] owes a duty of confidentiality to his clients, and accordingly, his work is not written about in 
disseminated journals or periodicals." Invoking the confidentiality of bank transactions does not relieve 
the petitioner of his burden of proof or entitle him to a lower standard of evidence. Furthermore, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
objective evidence of the petitioner's standing in the field need not consist of individual clients' private 
financial records. Such records, by themselves, would be of little use because they would not establish 
the petitioner's impact or influence on his field relative to that of his peers. 
stated: 
Throughout my career, I have regularly turned to [the petitioner] for investment advice 
and have sought to model my strategies after his work. He has left a lasting mark in our 
profession which has positively impacted the entire United States financial system. He 
has my highest recommendation . 
Throughout the financial services industry, [the petitioner] is known as one of the top 
producers. His innovative skill set far exceeds fellow fmancial managers .... 
Fellow investment managers frequently look to [the petitioner] for advice on attracting 
clients and successfully investing funds. His work is emulated throughout our exclusive 
and confidential industry, a fact that places him substantially above others in the field .... 
[The petitioner] has altered the way our industry operates on an international scale. 
The above claims, like those that preceded them, are very general and lack verifiable detail. The record 
contains no infom1ation about the petitioner's practices that others in the field are said to have adopted. 
Witnesses claim that the petitioner has altered international banking practices but given no information as 
to how he has done so. 
The petitioner submitted a copy of his 2012 Internal Revenue Service Form W-2 Wage and Tax 
Statement and a printout from the Foreign Labor Certification Data Center Online Wage Library, 
indicating that the petitioner's annual income is more than five times the local "Level 4 Wage" for 
"Financial Managers. " The petitioner filed the petition not as a financial manager , but as the vice 
president of a bank. The petitioner has not shown the two terms to be synonymous. 
The director denied the petition on July 30, 2013, stating that the petitioner had met only the first two 
prongs of the NYSDOT national interest test, pertaining to intrinsic merit and national scope. The 
director quoted from the submitted witness letters, and found them deficient. Regarding 
letter, for instance, the director concluded iliat ilie witness "provides no specific information of any sort 
and does not identify a contribution or impact which the petitioner made upon his field." The director 
found that, however the petitioner's work benefits his clients, the record contains no evidence of wider 
benefit to the United States or influence on the field. 
The petitioner's appeal includes an affidavit in which the petitioner states: 
I created a unique process for attracting and managing foreign investments in the United 
States. My process involves studying local dynamics and investor motivations and 
preferences of affluent regions of Brazil and focusing my client management on specific 
professions, such as professional athletes and business leaders .... There are only a few 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
individuals in the private banking field who are able to work with professional athletes in 
Brazil. 
My process also involves developing knowledge of relevant political issues, family 
situations, and other factors which allow me to design a customized investment strategy 
for each client. 
I am aware that others in my field utilize my original process for attracting and managing 
foreign investments in the United States. I have regularly been told by my peers that my 
process is emulated throughout the private banking industry, and I am also regularly 
consulted by my colleagues for my investment advice and strategy. 
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 of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). The petitioner cannot 
establish his influence on his field by claiming such influence. 
Counsel states that the petitioner's "reputation ... spans the globe, as evidenced by testimonial letters" 
submitted throughout this proceeding. The appeal includes three more such letters. 
ollows up his previous letter, stating: 
[The petitioner] has developed a groundbreaking process for attracting and securing 
investments from high net worth Brazilian investors. I believe his work is emulated by 
some of his peers who look to his methods as a guide in their own work. [The 
petitioner's] past record of accomplishments in International Private Banking are truly 
extraordinary. Specifically, [the petitioner's] private banking process involves focusing 
on certain professions in affluent regions of Brazil, including professional athletes. [The 
petitioner] also extensively studies family and situational, political and unique dynamics 
of investors to best understand motivating factors of this elite investor class. This original 
process for attracting funds from Brazilian investors to the United States is emulated 
throughout the field by fellow private bankers looking to expand their assets under 
management. 
The above passage is similar to portions of the petitioner's affidavit, and to a letter fro 
partner at 
[The petitioner] successfully attracts and secures investments from high net worth 
Brazilian investors to the United States. Specifically, his method involves focusing his 
client relationship management on affluent regions in Brazil, targeting at successful 
professionals . [The petitioner] studies these investor's (sic] motivations and has amassed 
a comprehensive understanding of the mindset of high net worth Brazilians, which has 
allowed him to develop deep-rooted relationships with this class of elite investors. 
, a 
(b)(6)
Page 10 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
... He pioneered in focusing on specific types of investors in Brazil and in advising 
them, utilizing his extensive knowledge of investment strategies in U.S. markets. 
. financial superintendent at ~ , "one of the largest utilities in Brazil," states 
that the petitioner "is widely regarded as the leading expert in International Private Banking, and his 
network of contacts and reputation is simply unmatched. His deep knowledge of his client's [sic] needs 
enables him to provide them with the most appropriate financial product." 
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." !d. 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 opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have received consideration 
above. USeiS 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, 
users is ultimately responsible for making the fmal determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they 
support the alien's eligibility. USCIS may even give Jess 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. 165 (unsupported assertions cannot suffice to meet 
the petitioner's burden of proof). 
The letters in the record primarily contain bare assertions regarding the petitioner's reputation and 
influence without specifically identifying innovations and providing specific examples of how those 
innovations have influenced the field. The witnesses offered only general assertions , such as the claim 
that the petitioner attracts larger investments by focusing on wealthy clients in "affluent regions in 
Brazil." 
Merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of 
proof. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. 
eir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). The same logic 
applies to repetition of key phrases from precedent decisions such as NYSDOT. Similarly, USers 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). The petitioner did not submit corroborating evidence in existence prior 
to the preparation of the petition, which could have bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
Counsel cites an unpublished appellate decision , indicating that "the high caliber of the witnesses was 
such that INS must give considerable weight to their expertise when evaluating the relative significance 
of the petitioner's work." Counsel has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant 
petition are comparable to those in the unpublished decision. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding . Counsel claims that the petitioner's witnesses are 
"highly placed in the field," but the record does not establish this claim. The witnesses' claimed titles 
alone are not sufficient in this regard. Also, a number of the witnesses are not in the petitioner 's field at 
all (one, for instance, is a former profess ional athlete). 
The petitioner has not submitted verifiable evidence to confim1 the amount of the investments he claims 
to have procured, or to show how that amount compares to the sums accumulated by others in his field. 
Witnesses claim that the petitioner has influenced his field through his methods of soliciting investments, 
but they offer no information about those methods except to state that the petitioner seeks wealthy clients 
and learns about their investment goals and other circumstances that may affect investment performance. 
The petitioner has not shown how this information distinguishes him from others in his line of work. 
The lack of detail in the petitioner 's claim, and the lack of corroborating evidence for those details that 
the petitioner has provided, preclude a finding that the petitioner has met his burden of proof. 
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 at 217, 
n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 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 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 AAO will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the inunigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec . 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met 
that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.