dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Surgery

• dentifying data deleted to 
1 1 1 unwarranted prevent c ear 'j l' acy invasion of persona pnv 
PUBUCCOPy 
FILE: 
INRE: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit)! 
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 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: FEi3 0 4 2011 
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. § lI53(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 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or 
Motion, with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
~PerryRhew 
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 classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a general surgeon. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus of an alien employment certification, is in the national interest of 
the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 submits a very general statement with little reference to the specific evidence 
submitted. Counsel's statement, which borders on the type of minimalist appeal that the AAO can 
summarily dismiss pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(v), does not overcome the director's bases for 
denial. Rather, for the reasons discussed below, we uphold the director's determination that the 
petitioner has not established his eligibility for the benefit sought. 
In addition to the inadequacy of the evidence, the record raises credibility issues. First, the petition was 
filed on June 9, 2009. On the same date, the petitioner also filed a petition seeking classification as an 
alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b)(I)(A) of the Act. The director also denied that 
petition and the petitioner did not appeal. On October 1, 2009, two months after the director denied 
these petitions, the petitioner filed two new petitions seeking benefits pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(A) 
of the Act and section 203(b)(2) of the Act (with a national interest waiver), SRC-1O-001-52562 and 
SRC-I0-001-51950. The petitioner and counsel signed both new petitions. On both of these new 
petitions, which are included in the record of proceeding before us, the petitioner responded "no" to 
Part 4, question 6 which asks whether any immigrant visa petition has ever been filed by or on behalf of 
the petitioner. The petition also advises that if the answer is "yes," the petitioner must provide the case 
number, office location, date of decision and disposition of the decision on a separate sheet of paper. 
The petitioner did not submit an attachment with this information. 
While there is no prohibition regarding the number of extraordinary ability and national interest waiver 
petitions an alien may choose to file, neither the alien nor his attorney of record is permitted to 
deliberately conceal the existence of prior filings in response to the specific questions at Part 4 of an 
1-140 petition, or to decline to provide U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USerS) with 
specific requested information regarding all prior filings. The Form 1-140 petition "shall be executed 
and filed in accordance with the instructions on the form." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(I). As counsel has 
represented the petitioner in both of his prior Form 1-140 filings, it is unclear why counsel signed the 
instant petition to indicate that the information on the form was "based on all information of which I 
have knowledge." The existence of prior petitions and the information contained within those petitions 
may be material to a new adjudication. See. e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(15) (withdrawal or denial of a 
petition due to abandomnent shall not itself affect a new proceeding; however, the facts and 
Page 3 
circumstances surrounding the prior petition shall otherwise be material to the new petition). The AAO 
notes that willfully misleading, misinforming or deceiving any person concerning any material and 
relevant matter relating to a case may be a basis for disciplinary sanctions under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1003.102(c). In addition, such actions may constitute frivolous behavior. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1003.102(j). 
With respect to the petitioner's failure to respond truthfully to the questions at Part 4 of the Form 
1-140, we note that the petitioner is currently in the United States as an H-IB nonimmigrant. A 
nonimmigrant's admission and continued stay in the United States is conditioned on the full and 
truthful disclosure of all information requested by the Service. Willful failure by a nonimmigrant to 
provide full and truthful information requested by USCIS (regardless of whether or not the 
information requested was material) constitutes a failure to maintain nonimmigrant status under 
section 237(a)(I)(C)(i) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(1). The AAO must express its deep concern and 
strongly discourage this behavior. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. --
(A) In general. -- Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer. 
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) 
that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
The petitioner holds a Master of Surgery degree from Kuvempu University. The petitioner'S 
occupation falls within the pertinent regulatory definition of a profession. The petitioner thus qualifies 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue is whether the 
petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus an alien employment 
certification, is in the national interest. 
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 
Page 4 
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, 10Ist Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the hnmigration 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 
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 which must be considered 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 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. Id. 
The record consists of the petitioner's academic and professional credentials, a lengthy disjointed and 
duplicative personal statement that incorporates some elements of a curriculum vitae, PowerPoint 
presentations with no supporting evidence confirming where the petitioner gave these presentations and 
broad conclusory reference letters. 
The petitioner's personal statement incorporates an article entitled "The Impending Disappearance of 
the General Surgeon." The inclusion of this article suggests that the request for a waiver of the alien 
employment certification process is based, at least in part, on a shortage of general surgeons. The 
assertion of a labor shortage should be tested through the alien employment certification process. Id. at 
220. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an issue under 
the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. !d. at 221. 
Page 5 
Counsel initially asserted that an employer seeking an alien employment certification from the 
Department of Labor may only include those job requirements normally required for the job. Counsel 
continues that these normal job requirements "fall short in consideration of the nature of [the 
petitioner's] work in surgery, because the factors relating to this scientific technique transcend the 
'context' of any specific employer's 'business' operation." Counsel notes that "understanding and 
properly diagnosing and treating serious surgery disorders affect patients' well being and have intrinsic 
merit relating directly to the national interest." Counsel concludes: 
Establishing "business necessity" for "unduly restrictive" requirements is outside the 
scope of the instant petition. As a physician, [the petitioner] is directly responsible 
for saving lives. Such skills cannot be measured in the context of business 
necessity." 
(Emphasis in original.) Counsel's assertions regarding the inapplicability of the alien employment 
certification process appear to relate to all physicians, all of whom diagnose and treat patients and are 
evaluated based on their clinical skills. There is, however, no blanket waiver for all competent 
physicians. We note that Congress did create a limited waiver of the alien employment certification 
process for physicians working in shortage areas or veterans facilities. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the 
Act. The petitioner does not seek a waiver under that provision. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, general surgery. 
The director then concluded that the petitioner was primarily working as a physician and questioned 
whether the proposed benefits of this work would be national in scope. In her initial cover letter, 
counsel asserted that the petitioner has reached a large and distinguished audience through his 
publications and presentations and "frequently diagnoses and treats patients from different parts of 
the country on referral." Counsel further asserted that the petitioner is able to perform "such 
advanced procedures that only a very small percentage of his peers are able to perform." Counsel 
stated that the petitioner then teaches these procedures to both junior and senior peers, "creating a 
ripple effect that is making the performance of these procedures more widespread nationally." 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Significantly, the record does not support 
many of counsel's assertions. For examples, the record contains no evidence that the petitioner has 
ever published a single article in a journal. While he claims to be currently working on two research 
projects, the only written research he submits is his unpublished dissertation from 1994. The 
PowerPoint presentations submitted review general medical concepts, current practices and 
individual case outcomes. They do not appear to report the petitioner's original research. Moreover, 
the record contains no programs or conference proceedings demonstrating that the petitioner gave 
these presentations at notable medical conferences rather than in-house. Finally, as will be discussed 
in more detail below, the petitioner's references do not provide any examples of recent original 
Page 6 
research. Rather, the petitioner appears to be primarily, if not entirely, a practicing surgeon rather 
than a medical researcher. 
In addressing what benefits might be national in scope in NYSDOT, the AAO stated: 
[T]he analysis we follow in "national interest" cases under section 203(b )(2)(B) of the 
Act differs from that for standard "exceptional ability" cases under section 203(b )(2)(A) 
of the Act. In the latter type of case, the local labor market is considered through the 
labor certification process and the activity performed by the alien need not have a 
national effect. 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. 
Id. at 217, n.3. Significantly, Congress is presumed to be aware of existing administrative and 
judicial interpretation of statute when it reenacts a statute. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 
(1978). In this instance, Congress' awareness of NYSDOT is a matter not of presumption, but of 
demonstrable fact. In 1999, Congress amended section 203(b)(2) of the Act in direct response to the 
1998 precedent decision. Congress, at that time, could have taken any number of actions to limit, 
modify, or completely reverse the precedent decision, such as by applying the waiver to all 
physicians or general surgeons. Instead, Congress let the decision stand, apart from a limited 
exception for certain physicians working in shortage areas, as described in section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of 
the Act. As stated above, while the petitioner submitted an article about a shortage of general 
surgeons, the petitioner does not seek a waiver under this provision. Because Congress has made no 
further statutory changes in the decade since NYSDOT, we can presume that Congress has no further 
objection to the precedent decision. 
Applying the above reasoning quoted from NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3, to the matter before 
us, the treatment of patients at a single hospital does not result in benefits that are discernible at the 
national level. Similarly, training colleagues in procedures developed by others provides benefits 
that are negligible at the national level. Thus, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the proposed 
benefits of his work will be national in scope. 
Nevertheless, we will analyze whether the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater 
extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. Eligibility for the 
waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position sought. In other 
words, we generally do not accept the argument that a given project is so important that any alien 
qualified to work on this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver. NYSDOT, 22 I&N 
Page 7 
Dec. at 218. Moreover, it cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique 
background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national 
interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States 
is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
At issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification he seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. Id. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, we note that original 
innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the speci fic 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
As stated above, the petitioner submitted a lengthy personal statement. In his statement, he details 
procedures he has performed, specific patients he has treated and roles he has had for various medical 
facilities. This self-serving statement is not helpful in determining the petitioner's influence in the 
field. More specifically, 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 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'\. Comm'r. 
1972)). While the petitioner claims to have served as 
the record contains no letters from someone at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(I) expressly states that evidence of experience shall 
consist of a letter from the employer. 
Counsel initially asserted that the petitioner "has had his work published in journals and presented at 
conferences that are national and even international." Thus, counsel concludes that the petitioner's 
research has had a "national, if not international impact." As stated above, the unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez. 17 I&N Dec. at 506. As discussed above, 
the petitioner submits no articles published in journals or conference proceedings. Rather, the 
petitioner submitted several PowerPoint presentations, many as short as two pages. The record 
contains no evidence that the petitioner presented this work at "conferences that are national and even 
international" as claimed by counsel. Specifically, the record contains no conference programs or 
articles by the petitioner in conference proceedings. 
Even if the petitioner had published or presented his work, that would only demonstrate its 
dissemination. The petitioner cannot demonstrate his influence in the field through publication and 
presentations alone. Rather, the petitioner must demonstrate the application or use of his work in the 
field through citations, testimonials or similar evidence. 
While the petitioner claims to have held "leading" roles with various medical facilities, the record does 
not support this assertion. Specifically, the petitioner claimed to have been 
Page 8 
As stated above, however, the record contains 
•~n~o:e~v~id~e~n~c~e~c~o=n~fi~nn~in~g~h:is=e:m~p:lo:ym:e:n:t:a:t:th:a:t::!:T:he claimed to have been a The 
states that the petitioner worked there as a 
from July 1,2004 and June 30, 2005. The record does not establish 
that residencies are than specialty training positions. On the Fonn ETA 750B, the petitioner listed 
his position with Howard Hospital as a residency. On his curriculum he indicated that 
he held a staff position." 
asserts that the petitioner holds a surgical 
position "is highly sought-after" by surgeons from around the world. 
how many surgical house staff positions exist at the hospital or how the general 
hierarchy of the hospital. Ultimately, the record lacks evidence that the petitioner's role at any medical 
facility is indicative of his influence in the field beyond that institution. 
The petitioner lists several medical society memberships in his self-serving personal statement. As 
stated above, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California. I&N Dec. at 190). an associate 
professor at Howard University Hospital, asserts that the American 
College of and the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons 
(SAGES). that these societies have "extremely stringent standards for 
membership. however, did not submit primary evidence of his membership from the 
societies themselves or primary evidence of their membership requirements in the fonn of their bylaws 
or constitution. The petitioner must submit primary or secondary evidence instead of affidavits unless 
the petitioner documents that primary evidence is either unavailable or does not exist. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(2)(i). The petitioner has not documented that primary evidence membership is 
unavailable or does not exist pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § I03.2(b)(2)(ii) Moreover, 
does not meet the requirements of an affidavit set forth at 8 C.F.R. § Iv~.~\v.,,~ 
affidavits. 
The only membership documented in the record is the petitioner's membership in the American 
Medical Association (AMA). Professional memberships are one type of evidence 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. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 222. 
The record contains no evidence that AMA membership is limited to those who have influenced the 
field or is otherwise indicative of the petitioner's influence in the field. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of his salary. A salary indicative of exceptional ability is 
another type of evidence that may be used to establish exceptional ability. Once again, exceptional 
ability, by itself, does not justify a waiver of the job offer/labor certification requirement. Thus, 
arguments hinging on the degree of experience required for the profession, while relevant, are not 
Page 9 
dispositive to the matter at hand. !d. at 222. Moreover, the petitioner did not submit evidence of 
comparable general surgeon salaries such that his salary is meaningful evidence. 
The record also contains what counsel characterizes as ') ob offers." This evidence actually consists of 
promotional materials soliciting job applications. The record contains no evidence that these employers 
actually offered the petitioner employment. Regardless, the petitioner's ability to secure employment in 
his field is not evidence that the alien employment certification process should be waived. We reiterate 
that any shortage of general surgeons is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. 
at 221. 
The petitioner also submitted evidence of coursework he has completed and evidence that the 
American Heart Association (AHA) has certified him as an Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support 
Program and a Healthcare Provider. The certification cards reveal that the AHA certified the petitioner 
based on cognitive and skills evaluations in accordance with AHA curriculum. The record does not 
contain evidence that these certifications are unique among general surgeons. Ultimately, the record 
lacks evidence that these certifications are indicative of the petitioner's influence in the field rather than 
his competence in the programs for which he obtained certification. 
The remaining evidence consists of reference letters. 
[The petitioner] is a researcher who was a crucial author for well-known surgical studies 
on such important topics as intestinal obstruction removal, managing ••• 
with surgery and cholecystectomy type comparisons. All topics of great interest to 
surgical community and its patients, who stand to benefit from the practical applications 
of his findings. Today, [the petitioner] has focused his research on penetrating 
abdominal trauma and gastric bypass quality in super morbidly-obese patients. Only the 
best physicians are able to conduct studies on such a wide variety of subjects. 
The petitioner conducted his research on intestinal obstruction removal for his dissertation in 1994. As 
stated above, the petitioner did not publish this research. The record contains no evidence that the 
petitioner is the author of any published research or that he presented his work at an external 
conference. Any unpublished research that the petitioner is currently undertaking cannot serve as 
evidence that he had already influenced the field as of the date of filing, the date as of which the 
petitioner must establish his eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'!. Comm'r. 1971). 
asserts that the petitioner serves in a "highly sought-after position" for which he 
was hired based on his "amazing clinical abilities as well as his talent in passing on those abilities to 
others through his teaching skills." __ further states that the petitioner is part of the faculty 
where he "has taught minimal acc~ernia skills needed by surgeons in the twenty-first 
century." Once again, the record does not suggest that the petitioner is responsible for any new 
technique or other innovation or that he is sought after outside Howard University Hospital to train 
~ 
Page 10 
surgeons around the country. Merely training surgeons •••••••••••• Iwho may move 
to a new location is insufficient evidence of other than a purely local impact. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 
2l7,n.3. 
Finally, the petitioner's talent as a practicing surgeon. Once again, the impact 
of a practicing surgeon is at the national level, even at hospitals that may receive patients 
from outside their local area. not suggest that the petitioner has impacted the 
practice of general surgery beyond the institutions where he has worked. We reiterate that there is no 
blanket waiver for skilled physicians, surgeons or anyone medical specialty. 
n;orn<'oPO the impending shortage of general surgeons in the United States. As stated 
above, the issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an issue 
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 221. The record contains no evidence that 
the alien employment certification process cannot address any local or national shortage of physicians. 
further asserts that the is one of the few surgeons able to treat' 
surgical procedures. assistant professor of surgery 
•••••••••• also asserts instructed "senior house staff surgical officers 
in advanced laparoscopic surgical procedures." _ does not profess any first hand knowledge 
that the petitioner provided such instruction to "senior" officers. 
cite any statistics or report confirming this alleged incompetency in laparoscopic techniques among the 
nation's general surgeons. 
The record contains no news articles or other media confirming that IS one 
of the rare hospitals with a general surgeon trained in the latest laparoscopy procedures. The petitioner 
has not published any articles or book chapters or presented any papers at external conferences on 
laparoscopy. A review of the PowerPoint presentations submitted reveals that none of them are 
instructions on laparoscopy technique. The only presentation to even mention laparoscopy is a patient 
study that states: "Proceeded to do a Laparoscopic cecal resection - no complications." 
assistant professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, asserts that 
the petitioner has improved several laparoscopic techniques. further asserts that he personally 
has benefitted "from several ~es that he has improved upon through his extensive, tireless, and 
innovative research work." _ does not explain how he became aware of the petitioner or his 
improved techniques as the petitioner has never published or presented any work. 
an associate professor of surgery 
~ner personally and is basing his letter on a review of the 
petitioner's curriculum vitae. _does not suggest he had ever heard of the petitioner prior to 
being requested to provide a reference letter. _praises the petitioner's "leading roles" for "the 
world's foremost medical institutions that select only the most distinguished physicians for such 
responsibilities." _does not profess any first hand knowledge of the roles the petitioner has 
held, but appears to basing his conclusions on the petitioner's self-serving curriculum vitae. 
Regardless, the waiver of the alien emp~rtification process is not a blanket waiver for anyone 
working for a distinguished employer. _ also~e number of procedures the petitioner 
performed in his eight years in Jamaica. Once again, _ professes no first hand knowledge of 
this number. RegardJess,_does not explain how these procedures have influenced the field as 
a whole. 
The final letter from an attending surgeon 
provides similar assertions as those addressed above. 
Ultimately, the petitioner is a general surgeon who has not published any articles or presented his work 
at any significant conference. The petitioner has not even established that he has completed his resident 
training in surgery. The record does not support the claims regarding the petitioner's unique abilities in 
laparoscopy. Regardless, it cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique 
background." Special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national 
interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States 
is an issue under the jurisdiction ofthe Department of Labor. Id. at 221. 
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, 
S U.S.c. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by an alien employment certification certified by the Department of Labor, appropriate 
supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.