dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Semiconductor Engineering

"ldentifying data deleted to 
prevent Cle,mj unwarranted 
invasion of personal privac} 
PVBLlCCOPY 
DA TE JUL 1 2 2011 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 
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. § I I 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.P.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, 
~~ 
~ p~rry RhewU 
J1 Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.go\' 
--Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska 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 to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § IIS3(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The petitioner, a designer and manufacturer of semiconductors, seeks to employ the beneficiary 
as a senior device engineer. 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 beneficiary 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 brief from counsel and numerous exhibits, many of them previously 
submitted. 
In this decision, the term "prior counsel" shall refer to 
_, who represented the petitioner at the time 
"counsel" shall refer to the present attorney of record. 
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. 
(8) 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 beneficiary 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. 
--Page 3 
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 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, !O I st Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (I 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. af Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r. 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 suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used 
here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. 
The AAO also notes 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 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. 
40 petition on April 15, 2009. In an introductory letter,_ 
the petitioning company, stated: 
--Page 4 
IThe petitioner] is a premier analog company, creating high-value analog devices and 
subsystems. [The petitioner's I leading-edge products include power management 
circuits, display drivers, audio and operation amplifiers, interface products and data 
conversion solutions. I The petitioner's) key analog markets include wireless 
handsets, displays, and a variety of broadband electronics markets .... 
[The petitionerl seeks to employ Ithe beneficiary I as a senior device engineer, with a 
focus on packaging engineering, on a full-time, permanent basis. As a senior device 
engineer, I the beneficiary] will be developing and researching improved methods for 
packaging various devices developed by [the petitioner], including but not limited to 
printed circuit board and LED devices. Through the application of his device 
packaging expertise, [the beneficiary I will lead [the petitioner's] efforts in developing 
novel and improved device packaging materials and methods. 
IThe beneficiary's] work in this field will be critical to [the petitioner's] success as a 
semiconductor fabricator and a leading innovator in semiconductor chip device 
operations. By developing devices that operate in smaller environments and 
withstand operational pressures generally associated with device functioning, Ithe 
beneficiary I will be advancing [the petitioner's 1 technological and commercial 
position within the industry .... The United States is in critical need for engineers and 
other scientists of [the beneficiary's) caliber in creating new and innovative 
technologies in this field. 
Prior counsel stated: 
[The beneficiary 1 is a professional in the field of semiconductor device packaging 
with more than a decade of experience .... 
Presently, Ithe beneficiary's] work at Ithe petItlomng company) is crucial to the 
company's continued ability to achieve optimally [sicl device packaging designs for 
improving next generation electronic device capabilities. His work has led to the 
development of novel and innovative methods for calculating the distribution of 
energy throughout the devices for which he designs packages, as well as developing 
new chip structures and packaging devices that are aimed at achieving device scaling 
while maintaining device operational properties. 
Prior counsel advanced general arguments about the importance of the semiconductor industry to 
establish the intrinsic merit and national scope of the beneficiary's work, and asserted that the 
beneficiary individually qualifies for a national interest waiver because he "has demonstrated an 
extensive ability to successfully identify better methods for encapsulating semiconductor devices 
and chips in a way that contributes to bettcr operational properties and longer device life." 
Page 5 
Most of the exhibits accompanying the initial submission consisted of background information about 
the beneficiary's occupation and the semiconductor industry, and basic documentation of the 
beneficiary's professional credentials. Prior counsel described original exhibit 5 as "a selected 
publication authored by [the beneficiary!, along with a citation list." The adjective "selected" 
implies the existence of other publications, but the petitioner did not submit them and USCIS is 
under no obligation to seek out other unidentified publications that the petitioner did not submit for 
consideration. See section 291 of the Act, which places the burden of proof on the party seeking 
immigration benefits. 
The fifth exhibit in the petitioner's initial submission is not a "publication" by the beneficiary, but 
rather two conference exhibit list contained no mention 
The program from the 
benefici 
The beneficiary's curriculum vitae listed nine items under the heading "Publications." Six of these 
items, as identified, are actually conference presentations dating from 2001 to 2005. The remaining 
three items date from 2000 to 2002. The record does not appear to contain copies of the articles 
themselves (or English translations thereof). The petitioner did not claim that the petitioner has 
produced any published or presented work since 2005. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of three "patent applications related to [the beneficiary's J 
work," all filed on behalf of the beneficiary's former employer, Samsung Electronics Company in 
2006-2007. The petitioner did not claim that the United States Patent and Trademark Office had 
approved the patent applications. 
Five witness letters accompanied the petition. 
the petitioner's Packaging Research Group, 
JThe beneficiary I has had an impressive career in the field of electrical engineering, 
and he has obtained nearly a decade of experience with device packaging. During 
that time, he has made several packaging discoveries and implemented several 
packaging design innovations that have allowed for several chip design 
improvements, including device scaling to reduce the chip size .... fThe beneficiary J 
has developed novel packaging concepts and manufacturing methods for light­
emitting diode (LED) components in increasing the ability for the devices to generate 
light, and withstand the heat that is created during operation. Through the improved 
packaging of such devices. ovcrall semiconductor functionality is increased, and the 
device's operational capacity contributes to the advancement of the industry as a 
whole .... 
for 
--Page 6 
The design innovations that [the beneficiary] developed have revolutionized device 
scaling and operation in smaller environments .... 
]The beneficiary's] work is critical to ]the petitioner'sl success as a fabricator and a 
leading innovator in the field of semiconductor chip device design. For instance, 
since joining the staff at [the petitioning company], ]the beneficiary] has filed five 
invention disclosures in the field of high speed short haul optical links (SHOL), with 
as many more under preparation. SHOL is projected to replace copper-based lines at 
lower power and cost. ... 
Accordingly, as a result of ]the beneficiary's] proven success, publication, invention 
disclosures and patent record, professional distinction through his work at SAlT and 
Ithe petitioning company], and extensive innovation in the field of electronic 
packaging, [the beneficiary] has distinguished himself as a truly visionary, 
exceptional engineer in [the] field of microelectronic packaging. 
I had the pleasure of supervising [the beneficiary's] study on a project involving ball 
grid array design innovation for semiconductor chips. As a result of my supervision 
of his research, I learned of ]the beneficiary's] exceptional talent and outstanding 
ability in his field of scientific endeavor. The ball grid array is a popular surface 
mount chip that uses a grid of solder balls as connectors on the chip. The research 
that I supervised for [the beneficiary] involved solder ball bumping techniques for 
silicon chips with high inputs and outputs and fine pitch .... 
In the course of his research, ] the beneficiary] developed a method for decreasing the 
height difference of the solder ball before mounting the chip on a printed circuit 
board .... Ultimately, the result was increased product reliability with fewer stress 
related performance problems. ]The beneficiary] also demonstrated the ability to 
successfully integrate design hardware tools into such solder ball bumping equipment 
and developed successful testing procedures in innovating the product design. 
Accordingly, [the beneficiary'S I work on this project represents a major finding in the 
field of chip design and packaging . 
. . . Moreover, [the beneficiary] has made groundbreaking discoveries beyond his 
studies at Moscow State Institute .... ] O]ne of his most significant findings is 
outlined below. Specifically,] the beneficiary] developed a construction technique 
through the use of modernized magnetron sputtering equipment. ... [The beneficiary] 
discovered a new application for polyimide film as a flexible interposer, by using the 
film's shock absorbing properties and clastic prope11ies. This fabrication is useful in 
-Page 7 
flip chip designs, as ... the metalized filml ] creates connections without the need for 
the wire attachment. Additionally, Ithe beneficiary's] design innovation allows for 
direct chip attachment to a printed circuit board through the use of a flexible carrier. 
The breakthrough eliminated previously encountered special limitations and 
restriction imposed on the silicon chip and printed circuit board designs .... [The 
beneficiary's] technique has been lauded by academic and industry experts, as it has 
demonstrated high assembly reliability and great utility within the industry. 
With respect to the last sentence quoted did not identify the "academic and 
industry experts" or demonstrate the extent to which "the industry" was using the beneficiary's 
designs. All of the petitioner's initial witnesses have worked closely with the beneficiary. 
witnesses worked with the 
in South Korea. 
In my professional opinion, Ithe beneficiary] has made outstanding and significant 
contributions in the field of semiconductor technology and innovation .... While 
working with wafer level chip scale packaging, [the beneficiary] developed a method 
for silicon wafer thinning down to 50 micrometers and forming metalized vias in 
order to form cap wafer or wafer-to-wafer bonding. Essentially, by developing these 
advanced wafer level chip scaling techniques, I the beneficiary] was able to achieve 
ultra-small, ultra-efficient packaging while still protecting sensitive parts of the 
microelectrical mechanical system from the harsh operating conditions present in the 
circuit. 
... [The beneficiary's] outstanding work has the ability to contribute immeasurably 
to the U.S. semiconductor industry .... A key area of research interest is the 
increasing scaling of semiconductor devices, including smaller dimensions for all 
semiconductor components .... 
[The beneficiary's I contributions have added significantly to the advancement of thc 
semiconductor industry and semiconductor device design .... [The beneficiary's] 
contributions to chip packaging allow for the continued competitive U.S. position in 
the global industry. 
stated: 
I first became familiar with Ithe beneficiary's] work in 2002, when [the beneficiary] 
joined my group at the MEMS Laboratory at SAlT, where he worked as a packaging 
enginecr. IThe bcneficiary] was involved in several major projects focusing on 
imaging sensors, MEMS, and high-powcr light cmitting diode (LED) packaging. The 
research goal in the lab was to invent novel approaches to packaging such devices 
Page 8 
while integrating existing technologies in the development of modern semiconductor 
solutions. I The beneficiary's] contributions with all of the projects conducted at the 
MEMS Laboratory clearly have been powerful innovations contributing to the Lab's 
goals. 
During his tenure with _ [the beneficiary] made a number of original scientific 
contributions to the projects in our lab. Some of [the beneficiary's] contributions 
represented novel developments in the field and truly served to help SAlT in 
maintaining a competitive position in the industry. For instance, [the beneficiary] 
developed a novel high-powered LED flip chip structure .... The unique element in 
Ithe beneficiary Is chip structure is its ability to withstand increased heat applications. 
which is essential in the soldering process. Additionally, the increase in the device's 
thermal budget, or ability to withstand and retain heat, greatly improves the optical 
performance of the LED device . 
. . . [T]here is no doubt that Ithe beneficiaryJ has influenced the field through his 
remarkably innovative work and has created potential positive economic impacts that 
will serve any company for whom he may work .... 
As a result of his work, [the beneficiary] has influenced the research of a major 
academic institution in Russia and one of the top semiconductor companies in the 
world - Samsung - through his service to the company in Korea. Now at [the 
petitioning company,1 the beneficiary is assisting the United States in maintaining a 
globally competitive position in the semiconductor industry. 
IThe beneficiary and IJ worked together on a joint project at _ involving new 
generation AI-based printed circuit boards (PCBs) and their implementation in high­
power light emitting diodes (LED) .... Some LEOs come complete with a series of 
resistors, and these LEOs are particularly valuable because they save space on the 
PCB and can be helpful in building prototypes or populating the PCB in a way other 
than as initially designed. However, the resistors can create luminescence problems 
in that the resistors remove the ability to manipulate the LED's intensity. Therefore, 
in studying the use of LEOs on PCBs, [the beneficiary] solved a key problem 
typically encountered in this integration process. Specifically, by using a self­
limiting AI oxidation process, [the beneficiary] was able to preven[tl the growth of 
brittle nanochannels of aluminum oxide. The result was a huge positive impact on 
the operating capabilities of the electrical and mechanical components of the metal 
core PCB .... [The beneficiary's] novel approach was critical to the entire progress 
of the project, as without a successful fabrication technique, the project could not 
move forward .... 
--Page 9 
During the time that I have known lthe beneficiary], I have consistently been 
impressed with his pioneering research in his scientific studies and its relevance to 
our scientific community. For instance, [the beneficiary] and his colleagues were 
able to improve the thermal conductivity of a packaged module when compared to 
other similar devices, making the engineering solution one that would function under 
a variety of thermo-mechanical conditions and also solving a major bottleneck in the 
reliability of this technology. 
On September 24, 2009, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE). In the RFE, the director 
stated that the petitioner's initial evidence "demonstrates that the proposed employment has 
substantial intrinsic merit and will be national in scope," but stated that additional evidence would be 
necessary to establish eligibility. The director specifically instructed the petitioner to submit "copies 
of published articles by other researchers citing or otherwise recognizing the petitioner's research 
and/or contributions," or printouts from databases identifying articles that contain independent 
citations of the petitioner's work. The director did not request any other evidence, and instructed the 
petitioner: "please DO NOT re-submit the same evidence" submitted previously (director's 
emphasis). [n response, the petitioner resubmitted copies of previously submitted exhibits, but no 
evidence of citation of the beneficiary's published work (notwithstanding prior counsel's earlier 
reference to a citation list). 
The petitioner's response to the RFE also included new letters from counsel and from 
neither of whom acknowledged the director's specific requests or explained why the response to the 
RFE was ~ at odds with what the director had asked the petitioner to submit (and not to 
submit). _deemed the beneficiary "a vital asset whose work is in the national interest of 
the United States." Counsel described the resubmitted exhibits and stated that the beneficiary "has 
provided unique insight and vital contributions in advancing chip packaging technologies, and thus 
semiconductor operability, during his near decade of experience in the industry." 
The director denied the petition on January 20,2010, again acknowledging the intrinsic merit and 
national scope of the beneficiary's work, but stating: 
[E]vidence of publication in itself is not sufficient to show impact or influence on the 
field of endeavor. The evidence must show that the published articles actually 
impacted or influenced the field of endeavor. 
One major indicator of impact or influence IS citation by other independent 
researchers in the field of endeavor. ... 
In this case, the record indicates that the petitioner has a total of nine publications. 
There was no evidence presented to show how many times these articles were cited. 
Page 10 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of several highly complimentary witness 
letters, but found that the petitioner had failed to submit objective, independent evidence to support 
the claims in those letters. 
On appeal, counsel claims that the director denied the petition "solely for failure to submit evidence 
that [the beneficiary's] work has been cited by others in the field." Counsel protests that this is not 
sufficient grounds for denial of the petition. The director devoted two paragraphs of a four-page 
decision to the issue of citations, which does not indicate that the director focused "solely" on that 
issue. The record on its face, therefore, refutes this argument by counsel. 
Furthermore, it remains that prior counsel's original exhibit list referred to "a selected publication 
authored by [the beneficiary], along with a citation list." Because the initial submission did not 
contain these exhibits, it was not unreasonable for the director to request that evidence. The RFE 
consisted of only two specific points: (1) submit the citation information to which prior counsel had 
already referred (thereby implying its existence), and (2) do not submit redundant copies of previous 
submissions. The petitioner's response to the RFE ignored both of these points, duplicating previous 
submissions instead of providing the one thing that the director had requested. 
Counsel, on appeal, correctly argues that citations are not necessary to qualify for the waiver. In this 
instance, however, the petitioner's previous attorney not only claimed that such citations existed, but 
that a list of those citations was part of the petition. 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 
Crafi of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'\. Comm'r. 1972)). Once the petitioner or its attorney or 
representative claims that specific evidence exists, it is the petitioner's responsibility to make that 
evidence available or provide a persuasive explanation for its absence. It is not at all unreasonable 
for the director to hold the petitioner to its word in such instances, and false claims by the petitioner 
or counsel (whether made deliberately or carelessly) about the composition of the record are not a 
trifling matter. With respect to this last point, counsel repeats prior counsel's claim that the 
petitioner's initial submission included copies of the beneficiary's "publications," a claim that the 
record does not support. 
Counsel contends that the beneficiary meets the regulatory requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) 
for an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, and that the court's decision in Kazarian v. USC/S, 
596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010), prohibits the director from imposing additional qualifications beyond 
those listed in the regulations. Counsel devotes much of the appellate brief to a discussion of how the 
beneficiary qualifies for classification as an alien of exceptional ability. This discussion is moot, 
because the director acknowledged that the benefIciary readily qualifIes as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. An additional finding of exceptional ability would not have any effect on 
the beneficiary's eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
Counsel is correct that the Ninth Circuit's Kaz.arian decision prohibits "novel substantive or evidentiary 
requirements" (ld. at 1121), but requiring the petitioner to submit evidence mentioned, but not included, 
Page II 
in the record of proceeding is not a novel substantive or evidentiary requirement. Failure to submit 
requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition. 
S C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l4). 
The Kazarian decision concerns a petition for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability under 
section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The related regulations included, at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), a list of 
specific criteria by which a petitioner can establish an alien's extraordinary ability. The logic in the 
Kazarian decision can apply to other classifications that include similar "checklists" of qualifying 
standards. For the national interest waiver, however, there exists no such list. The regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii) states only: "The director may exempt the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification ... if exemption would be in the national interest." The regulation is 
silent as to how the director should make this determination. Kazarian, therefore, does not apply. 
In the absence of specific statutory or regulatory requirements, the controlling case law regarding the 
national interest waiver is Matter of New York State Dept. of'Transportation, the only precedent 
decision that addresses the subject. Under that decision, the petitioner must establish "a past history 
of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole" (ld. at 219 n.6). 
The precedent decision did not specify what form the evidence of influence should take, because 
aliens in a very broad range of occupations might qualify for the waiver. One way to show such 
influence is through citation of published work. It is for this reason that the director requested the 
citation evidence to which the petitioner (through prior counsel) had previously referred. 
As previously stated, the beneficiary appears to have stopped publishing and presenting his work 
now that he has ceased to be a student and has begun working in private industry. Therefore, the 
petitioner must establish the beneficiary'S continuing impact in some other fashion. Counsel 
contends that the beneficiary's "expertise is evidenced and recognized by a variety of sources," but 
does not elaborate except to note that the beneficiary "has several United States patents." Matter (d' 
New York State Dept. of'Transportation specifically addresses the patent issue, stating that "an alien 
cannot secure a national interest waiver simply by demonstrating that he or she holds a patent. 
Whether the specific innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case by case 
basis." ld. at 221 n.7. Counsel's appellate brief contains no mention of Matter of New York State 
Dept. oj'Transportation, nor any explanation as to how the petitioner has met the guidelines set forth 
in that binding precedent decision . 
. accompany the appeal. 
states that he has "been no'ffiing ary core 
skills, work ethic, and ability to deliver," and that the beneficiary is "an invaluable team member" 
whose "dedication to success is exemplary." 
The other new letter on appeal is from 
California, Santa Cruz, who worked with the 
develop a low-power low-cost IOGb/s optical link." 
shown a good achievement track record." 
associate professor at the University of 
nr<,ip"t funded by [the petitioner I to 
states that the beneficiary "has 
Page 12 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and the AAO has considered them above. 
USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter (Jf 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 above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they 
support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. US CIS 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. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Crqti of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'\. Comm'r. 1972)). 
In this instance, the petitioner's letters are all from the beneficiary's mentors and collaborators, 
which cannot establish first-hand the broader extent of the beneficiary's impact and influence. The 
witnesses all assert that the beneficiary has contributed to the advancement of semiconductor 
packaging technology, but working toward such improvements appears to be a basic component of 
his job duties. The petitioner did not hire the beneficiary, or others in the same position, simply to 
appl y existing technology, but rather to improve that technology and expand its boundaries. The 
intrinsic merit and national scope of such work are not in doubt, but the petitioner has not shown, 
through objective and independent evidence, that it serves the national interest (rather than the 
narrower interest of the beneficiary's employer) for the beneficiary to do that work instead of a 
qualified United States worker. This is not to disparage the beneficiary or his accomplishments, but 
rather to stress the point that being talented and well-qualified for a given job is not presumptive 
grounds for granting the national interest waiver. Early in this proceeding, the director had advised 
the petitioner that its initial submission was deficient, and that further evidence would be necessary. 
The petitioner has responded, first in response to the RFE and later on appeal, mainly by 
resubmitting copies of the same materials that the director had already found to be insufficient. 
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. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.