dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Speech Language Pathology

identifying d2J8 1eleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
DATE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
MAY 20 2011 
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: 
SRC 
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 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)(l)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas 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 to classify the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.c. § 1153(b )(2), as an alien of exceptional ability. The petitioner seeks 
to employ the beneficiary as a bilingual speech language pathologist. 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 beneficiary does not qualify for 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but did not address whether 
the beneficiary might qualify as an alien of exceptional ability. The director further concluded that the 
petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the 
national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, counsel presents a few assertions on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, and indicated that 
she would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to the AAO within 30 days. Counsel dated the 
appeal July 15,2009. As of this date, approximately 22 months later, the AAO has received nothing 
further. Thus, the appeal will be adjudicated based on counsel's statements on the Form I-290B and the 
record before the director. For the reasons discussed below, the petitioner has not established that a 
shortage and the oversubscription of visas in the lesser classification for which the petitioner has 
obtained an alien employment certification in behalf of the beneficiary warrants a waiver of the 
certification in the national interest. Significantly, the national interest waiver only waives the alien 
employment certification process, something the petitioner has completed, and not the other general 
requirements for classification pursuant to section 203(b )(2). 
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) 
Page 3 
that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
Eligibility for the Classification 
In pertinent part, section 203(b )(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the 
professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent and whose services are sought by an 
employer in the United States. An advanced degree is a United States academic or professional 
degree or a foreign equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2). The 
regulation further states: "A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree 
followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the 
equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien 
must have a United States doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree." !d. 
As defined at Section IOI(a)(32) of the act, profession "shall include but not be limited to architects, 
engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in elementary or secondary schools, colleges, 
academies, or seminaries." The regulation at 8 c.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2), in pertinent part, defines 
"profession" as follows: 
[O]ne of the occupations listed in section IOI(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any 
occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is 
the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
The petitioner submitted materials from the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook 
(OOH) indicating that most speech language pathologist positions require a master's degree. Thus, the 
beneficiary's occupation falls within the pertinent regulatory definition of a profession. 
The Metropolitan University of Barranquilla in Colombia awarded the beneficiary the title of Speech 
and Language Therapist and Audiologist on July 25, 1997. An evaluation in the record equates this 
title with a Bachelor of Science in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology from a regionally 
accredited university in the United States. Atlantico University in Colombia certifies that the 
beneficiary completed a course in Special Education in June 29, 2000. According to the same 
evaluation, this course is equivalent to 15 semester hours of special education transferable to a 
regionally accredited university in the United States. 
As stated above, pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(2), a U.S. baccalaureate or a foreign equivalent degree 
plus five years of post-baccalaureate progressive experience is equivalent to an advanced degree. The 
petitioner must demonstrate that experience as of the filing date in this matter, November 6, 2007. 
The petitioner submitted approval notices for nonimmigrant petitions in behalf of the beneficiary. The 
Manhattan Center for Early Learning and the petitioner filed these nonimmigrant petitions. The 
validity dates are October 2,2003 through October 1,2006, November 6, 2006 through June 14,2007 
Page 4 
and June 15, 2007 through July 8, 2007. According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1), 
however, evidence of experience "shall" be in the form of letters from current or past employers. Thus, 
the AAO will not consider the approval notices as evidence of past experience. Moreover, the 
nonimmigrant visa approval notices do not establish the nature or length of employment. 
The petitioner submitted a letter from 
in Colombia confirming that the beneficiary worked there as a speech therapist from 1997 through 
1999. The 'tioner also submitted a letter from 
confirming that the beneficiary worked as a speech 
therapist at the company's from 1999 to 2001. In addition, the 
petitioner submitted letters from psychologist at Hospital Nazareth, and _ 
••• lILegal Representative of the Educational Center of the Caribbean, confirming personal 
knowledge of the beneficiary as an honest and responsible person. These letters do not establish any 
employment. The petitioner affirms that the beneficiary has worked there as a speech language 
assistant since November 2006. 
The above letters establish employment from an unidentified month in 1997 to an unidentified month 
in 2001. The beneficiary obtained her baccalaureate on July 25, 1997. As such, even if the 
beneficiary began work at immediately after leaving Hospital 
Nazareth and worked through December 2001, these letters would establish no more 
than 31 months of employment. Thus, the addition of one year of employment with the petitioner as of 
the date of filing does not amount to five years of post-baccalaureate experience. Finally, as the 
beneficiary went from working as a speech therapist to a speech language assistant, the petitioner has 
not established that the beneficiary's experience is progressive. 
As the petitioner has not documented that the beneficiary has at least five years of post-baccalaureate 
progressive experience, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary qualifies as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, however, the petitioner asserted that the 
beneficiary qualifies as an alien of exceptional ability. The director did not address this claim. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the following six criteria, at least three of 
which an alien must meet in order to qualify as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, the 
arts, or business: 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, 
certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or other institution of 
learning relating to the area of exceptional ability 
Page 5 
(B) Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that 
the alien has at least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he 
or she is being sought 
(C) A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation 
(D) Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability 
(E) Evidence of membership in professional associations 
(F) Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations 
If a petitioner has submitted the requisite evidence, U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) determines whether the evidence demonstrates "a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered" in the arts. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 
(9th Cir. 2010), sets forth a two-part approach where the evidence is first counted and then 
considered in the context of a final merits determination. While involving a different classification 
than the one at issue in this matter, the similarity of the two classifications makes the court's 
reasoning persuasive to the classification sought in this matter. In reviewing Service Center 
decisions, the AAO will apply the test set forth in Kazarian. The AAO maintains de novo review. 
See 8 C.F.R. 103.3(a)(1)(iv); Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d at 145; Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United 
States, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 1043 (recognizing the AAO's de novo authority). 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar 
award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of 
exceptional ability 
As discussed above, the petitioner submitted the beneficiary's foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. 
baccalaureate and a certificate for 15 credits of coursework transferrable to a u.S. university. Thus, 
the petitioner has submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain language requirements of the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at 
least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, counsel asserted that the petitioner was 
submitting letters and the beneficiary's self-serving resume as evidence of the beneficiary's 10 years 
of experience. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B), however, states that evidence of 
Page 6 
experience must be in the "form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s)." Thus, the AAO 
will only consider the letters. As discussed above, the letters document less than five years of post­
baccalaureate experience. Thus, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has ten years 
of experience as a bilingual speech language pathologist, the occupation for which the petitioner 
seeks the beneficiary. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence that meets the plain 
language requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation 
The petitioner submitted a license from the State of Florida Department of Health, division of 
Medical Quality Assurance, confirming that the beneficiary, a speech-language pathology assistant, 
"has met all the requirements of the laws and rules of the state of Florida." The petitioner also 
submitted the beneficiary's passing scores for the New York State Teacher Certification 
Examination. The beneficiary's scores are for English and Spanish and are not specific to speech 
pathology. 
Even if the AAO presumes that the license must be in the beneficiary's profession or occupation to 
qualify under this criterion, the beneficiary's Florida license is qualifying under the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a salary, or other remuneration for services, which 
demonstrates exceptional ability 
The record documents that the beneficiary and her spouse jointly reported $38,333 in wages in 2004 
and $22,565 in 2005. The record does not establish how much ofthese wages the beneficiary herself 
earned. The petitioner also submitted the beneficiary's 2006 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 
W-2 reflecting wages of $17,827. Without evidence of comparative wages in the occupation, 
however, the petitioner cannot demonstrate that the beneficiary's wages are indicative of exceptional 
ability. Thus, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence under the plain language 
requirements of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
Evidence of membership in professional associations 
The record contains no evidence relating to this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by 
peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations 
The record contains no evidence relating to this criterion, such as formal certificates of recognition. 
Page 7 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not submitted evidence that qualifies under three of the 
evidentiary criteria. Nevertheless, the AAO will next conduct a final merits determination that 
considers all of the evidence in the context of whether or not the petitioner has demonstrated that the 
beneficiary has "a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). Section 203(b )(2)(C) of the Act provides that the possession of a degree, diploma, 
certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning or a 
license to practice or certification for a particular profession or occupation shall not by itself be 
considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. Thus, in the final merits determination, the 
AAO must determine whether the beneficiary's degree or license is indicative of or consistent with a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. 
As stated above, the OOH materials the petitioner submitted state that most posItIons in the 
beneficiary's occupation require a Master's degree. Thus, the beneficiary's baccalaureate and 15 
semester hours of transferrable credit are not indicative of or even consistent with a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered among speech pathologists. The OOH materials also 
state that 47 states require speech-language pathologists to be licensed through passing the national 
examination on speech pathology. While only 12 states require such licensure for speech pathologists 
in public schools, it remains that the petitioner has not established how the beneficiary's license as a 
speech-language pathology assistant in Florida and passing scores in New York for certification as a 
teacher of English and Spanish demonstrate her expertise significantly above that ordinarily 
encountered among speech pathologists. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary qualifies as an alien of 
exceptional ability. 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. 
National Interest 
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 
(IMMACT), 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 
Page 8 
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 Dep't. of 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 use of the term 
"prospective" requires 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 record contains ample evidence regarding the importance of speech pathology. Thus, the 
beneficiary works in an area of intrinsic merit. The next question is whether the proposed benefits of 
the beneficiary's work, the availability of bilingual speech pathology services, would be national in 
scope. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3 provides the following examples where the proposed 
benefits would not be national in scope: 
Id. 
For instance, pro bono legal services as a whole serve the national interest, but the 
impact of an individual attorney working pro bono would be so attenuated at the 
national level as to be negligible. Similarly, while education is in the national interest, 
the impact of a single schoolteacher in one elementary school would not be in the 
national interest for purposes of waiving the job offer requirement of section 
203(b )(2)(B) of the Act. As another example, while nutrition has obvious intrinsic 
value, the work of one cook in one restaurant could not be considered sufficiently in the 
national interest for purposes of this provision of the Act. 
While the petitioner has suggested students from other states may come to Florida for bilingual 
speech therapy, it remains that the impact of a single teacher is so attenuated at the national level as 
to be negligible. The petitioner does not suggest that the beneficiary would be developing national 
standards or curricula or otherwise performing services that might have a national impact. Thus, the 
petitioner has not demonstrated that the occupation provides benefits that are national in scope. 
Page 9 
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. The basis of the 
petitioner's request for a waiver of the alien employment certification process has two elements. First, 
that there is an immediate national need for bilingual speech pathologists and, second, that the third 
preference visa for which the beneficiary is otherwise eligible with an approved alien employment 
certification is oversubscribed. Initially, the petitioner stated: "Please note that the case of NY DOT has 
suggested that significant processing delays in obtaining labor certifications may be viewed as a factor 
in favor of a grant of a national interest visa waiver." The petitioner provides no page cite to support 
this assertion. 
NYSDOT states and then reiterates several times that a labor shortage is not a basis for the national 
interest waiver of the process designed to test the labor market. First, the decision states: 
With regard to the unavailability of qualified u.s. workers, the job offer waiver based 
on national interest is not warranted solely for the purpose of ameliorating a local labor 
shortage, because the labor certification process is already in place to address such 
shortages. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. 
In response to a claim of a national shortage, the decision states that this assertion "should be tested 
through the labor certification process." Id at 220. The decision further states that the issue of a 
shortage is not even within USCIS' jurisdiction. Specifically, the decision states: "The issue of whether 
similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department 
of Labor." Id at 221. The decision continues: 
A number of the witnesses in this case assert that engineers with the beneficiary's 
qualifications are in short supply, yet are desperately needed because of the deterioration 
of u.S. bridges. The petitioner has never clearly explained why the job offer and thus 
the labor certification requirement should be waived. Given the asserted shortage of 
qualified engineers with the requisite training, and the evident existence of an offer of 
permanent employment, the situation appears to correspond closely to the very situation 
that the labor certification process was designed to address. 
Id at 222. 
The petitioner in this matter contends that while the petitioner can secure, and indeed has secured, an 
alien employment certification on behalf of the beneficiary, the loss of the beneficiary's services while 
she waits for a visa in the lesser classification is not in the national interest. Contrary to the petitioner's 
assertion that NYSDOT addresses this situation, that decision does not imply that the national interest 
waiver is an appropriate means to secure a higher classification than is otherwise available for the 
position. 
Page 10 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 222 does state that the petitioner in that case did not demonstrate that it 
would suffer a substantial disruption in its efforts to maintain New York's bridges and roads if legacy 
Immigration and Naturalization Service (now USCIS) did not approve the waiver. First, this statement, 
in the context of numerous statements that the final factor is specific to the beneficiary rather than the 
project or occupation, does not suggest that an employer need only demonstrate that the beneficiary's 
nonimmigrant visa status is expiring. Second, in that case, the petitioner had demonstrated that the 
benefits of the occupation are national in scope. Third, nothing in this statement suggests that the 
national interest waiver is an appropriate vehicle to secure a second preference visa for a beneficiary 
seeking to work in a position that would otherwise qualify as third preference. Congress limited the 
national interest waivers to the second preference classification. Neither the petitioner nor counsel cites 
to any legislative history or other source suggesting that Congress intended the national interest waiver 
as a means for employers to obtain second preference classification for positions that otherwise only 
qualify for third preference. 
While the petitioner submitted evidence regarding the significance of the beneficiary's profession, such 
evidence cannot establish the beneficiary's eligibility for the benefit sought. NYSDOT explains this 
principle in several places. First, the decision states: 
Likewise, it cannot be argued that an alien qualifies for a national interest waiver simply 
by virtue of playing an important role in a given project, if such a role could be filled by 
a competent and available u.s. worker. The alien must clearly present a significant 
benefit to the field of endeavor. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. 
In addressing arguments that the alien in NYSDOT worked in an important profession, the decision 
continues: 
It is indisputably true that the nation's bridges play a fundamental role in the 
transportation system and, by extension, in the economy itself which depends on the 
transportation of goods and mobility of commuters and tourists. The employer's 
assertions regarding the overall importance of an alien's area of expertise cannot suffice, 
however, to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. The issue in this case is 
not whether proper bridge maintenance is in the national interest, but rather, whether 
this particular beneficiary, to a greater extent that U.S. workers having the same 
minimum qualifications, plays a significant role in the preservation and construction of 
bridges. 
Id at 220. 
Page 11 
In concluding, the decision reiterates: "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 as they relate to the job to be performed." Id at 222-23. 
While other factors are relevant, eligibility for the waiver ultimately must rest with the alien's own 
qualifications rather than with the importance of the position sought. In other words, 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. At issue is whether this 
beneficiary's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the beneficiary merits the 
special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa classification her employer 
seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. A petitioner 
must demonstrate the beneficiary's past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. Id. at 219, n. 6. The central question involves the merits of the individual alien as 
they relate to the job to be performed. Id at 223. While the petitioner claims that the beneficiary has 
over 10 years of experience, this experience alone is insufficient. Specifically, NYSDOT states: 
Furthermore, with regard to experience, the regulations indicate that ten years of 
progressive experience is one possible criterion that may be used to establish 
exceptional ability. Because exceptional ability, by itself, does not justify a waiver of 
the job offer/labor certification requirement, arguments hinging on the degree of 
experience required for the profession, while relevant, are not dispositive to the matter 
at hand. 
Id at 222. 
The petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary has a history of past achievements that 
demonstrates the beneficiary would present a significant benefit "to the field of endeavor." Id at 218. 
Merely demonstrating that the beneficiary would fill a position in which the United States has a 
shortage does not demonstrate the beneficiary's past influence in the field. The record lacks evidence 
that the beneficiary has developed new therapies, curricula or philosophy that has influenced the way 
speech therapists practice or similar evidence of her influence in the field. 
The fact that the petitioner happens to originate from Colombia and, thus, speaks Spanish, is not 
evidence that she has or will make an impact on the field of speech pathology other than to benefit 
her specific clients, which, while having intrinsic merit, is not national in scope. If USCIS were to 
accept that the petitioner's bilingual ability warrants approval of the waiver, USCIS would need to 
approve the waiver for every alien from a non-English speaking country with a degree in a profession 
that provides services to the public (social workers, therapists, doctors, psychologists, etc.) The 
petitioner has not established that Congress intended the national interest waiver to serve as a blanket 
waiver for all bilingual aliens providing services to the public. 
.,' . 
Page 12 
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.