dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Surgery

identifYing data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COP)' 
DATE: JUL 0 5 2011 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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 1-290B, 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 ofthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscls.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 an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks as a general surgery resident. The 
petitioner had been working as a surgical resident or an affiliated hospital since July 
2005. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from ofajob 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 asserts that the director failed to understand the evidence submitted. For the 
reasons discussed below, the record does not support counsel's implication that the petitioner is a 
researcher who has discovered a likely cure for cholera. Rather, the director correctly concluded that 
the petitioner, at the time of filing, was a surgical resident trainee whose studies had yet to appear in 
peer-reviewed journals as of the date of filing the petition. With one exception two months before the 
date of filing, the conferences documented in the record are all local or regional. The record is absent 
evidence that the petitioner's one national presentation has had any subsequent influence nationally. 
The petitioner must establish his eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(I), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). Even on appeal, the record contains no 
evidence that the petitioner is the author of a single published journal article as of the date of appeal or 
that his presentations are being cited or otherwise widely used. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. --
(A) In general. -- Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of job offer. 
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) 
that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
The petitioner holds a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from the 
The petitioner did not submit a formal evaluation of this foreign degree. As such, the AAO cannot 
determine whether the petitioner's degree is the foreign of a U.S. medical degree. 
That said, the petitioner did submit certification from for ••••••• 
that the petitioner "has satisfied all the requirements of the commission." The petitioner's 
occupation falls within the pertinent regulatory definition of a profession. If the AAO were to accept 
that the petitioner's degree is a foreign equivalent degree to a U.S. medical degree, the petitioner would 
qualif'y as a member ofthe 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 
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 1 standard must 
make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualif'y 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 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 pro!.pective 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 
Page 4 
"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 AAO concurs with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, surgery. 
The director then stated that while the petitioner's studies were currently unpublished, if published, 
they could have a benefit that was national in scope. On appeal, counsel asserts that the director 
erred in determining that the petitioner's work was not national in scope. Specifically, counsel 
asserts that the petitioner "likely discovered a cure for cholera" and because gastrointestinal surgery 
is performed beyond the State of Connecticut. 
Counsel mischaracterizes the director's conclusion. The director acknowledged that research, if 
published, could produce benefits that are national in scope. The director's concerns regarding the 
petitioner's lack of a publication record, while valid, are best discussed under the final prong of 
NYSDOT. At issue in the second prong are only the proposed benefits. 
In addressing what benefits would not be national in scope in NYSDOT, the AAO stated: 
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. The petitioner, while a physician, does not seek a waiver under this provision. Because 
Congress has made no further statutory changes in the decade since NYSDOT, the AAO 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 
Page 5 
national level. Thus, the only proposed benefits of the petitioner's work that could be national in 
scope are those resulting from research, which has yet to appear in a peer-reviewed journal. 
It remains, then, to determine whether the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater 
extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. Eligibility for the 
waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position sought. In other 
words, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) generally does not accept the argument 
that a given project is so important that any alien qualified to work on this project must also qualifY 
for a national interest waiver. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. Moreover, it 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, the AAO notes that 
original innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id at 221, n. 7. 
The petitioner submitted (l) an unpublished study with rats on cholera, (2) an unpublished ten year 
retrospective chart review on patients with peptic ulcers, (3) an unpublished surgical study of a Sural 
nerve harvesting device four an unpublished retrospective chart review of data 
on Clostridium infection and (5) two unpublished case studies. None of 
these manuscripts appeared in peer-reviewed joumal or any other medical journal as of the date of 
filing the petition. In fact, the record still contains no evidence of publication of these manuscripts. 
Without evidence of dissemination, the petitioner cannot establish the influence of these manuscripts. 
The petitioner also initially submitted three poster presentations with no evidence of where the 
petitioner presented this work. The record of proceedings includes two petitions filed on the same date 
seeking to classifY the petitioner as an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203 (b)(1 )(A) of 
the Act and as an outstanding researcher pursuant to section 203(b)(1 )(B) of the Act.l The petitioner 
submitted evidence of the location of his presentations in support of the other two petitions. The 
petitioner or a coauthor presented the petitioner's work on peptic ulcers at the American College of 
Surgeons' 94th Annual Clinical Congress in October 2008, two months before filing the petition. The 
petitioner presented his poster relating to the treatment of cholera with calcimimetics at the Annual 
Meeting of the New England Surgical Society The petitioner also presented his 
I The director also denied both of these petitions. Those decisions are not before the AAO. 
Page 6 
work at annual me,etillgs of the Cormecticut Chapter of the American College of Surgeons and his place 
of which is affiliated wi~ 
Local and regional presentations do not afford the petitioner the opportunity to disseminate his research 
nationally. Moreover, the petitioner must document not only widespread dissemination but also the 
influence of the research once disseminated. This influence must be apparent as of the date of filing the 
petition. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. All of the case law 
on this issue focuses on the policy of preventing petitioners from securing a priority date in the hope 
that they will subsequently be able to demonstrate eligibility. Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N 
Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'\. Comm'r. 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; see also Matter of 
izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 
(BIA 1981) for the proposition that USCIS cannot "consider facts that come into being only 
subsequent to the filing of a petition. ") Consistent with these decisions, a petitioner cannot secure a 
priority date in the hope that his recently published or as of yet unpublished research will 
subsequently prove influential. Ultimately, in order to be meritorious in fact, a petition must meet 
the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval as of the date it was filed. Ogundipe v. 
Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 2008). 
The petitioner presented his work at what appears to be a national conference two months before filing 
the petition. The record contains little evidence that, within these two months (or even as of the date of 
appeal), this presentation had notably influenced the field. For example, the record contains no 
citations of any of the petitioner's presentations or letters from independent clinics or hospitals who 
have adopted the petitioner's findings into their standard practices. The only letter affirming any 
reliance on this work is a letter from a local colleague discussed below. 
The record contains a certificate awarding second place to the petitioner'S 
poster presentation at the hospital's certificate postdates the filing of the 
petition and, thus, cannot establish eligibility as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Regardless, the certificate represents local employer recognition. 
On appeal, counsel suggests that the petitioner's training opportunity is, itself, 
relevant evidence of eligibility. The AAO will not presume an influence in a field by association with a 
distinguished institution. It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate his actual influence. 
The remaining evidence consists of letters. The letters from the petitioner's colleagues prior to entering 
the United States simply confirm his employment as a surgeon and physician and medical training in 
Pakistan and the United Kingdom. As discussed above, the petitioner's services as a physician are not 
national in scope. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. 
The petitioner submitted a single letter from the 
reference, letters from colleagues in Cormecticut, and a 
Hospital where the petitioner first worked in the United States. 
that may be from an .!!. ~~~!!! 
£2!!~~ at 
Page 7 
the General Surgery Residence Program asserts generally that the petitioner 
"possessed all the characteristics of an outstanding physician" ~de any examples of the 
petitioner's innovations or influence in the field. Rather, __ notes the shortage of 
surgeons. 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. 
During the course of his studies, [the petitioner] was involved in identifYing the role of 
the calcium sensing receptor in modulating fluid transport in the ileum and that this 
mechanism could prevent secretory diarrhea, a deadly illness that kills over 5 million 
children per year. During the course of these studies, [the petitioner] developed a novel 
and new method to measure fluid transport in isolated segments of intestine using a 2-
electrode approach. This technology was a major breakthrough as it now allows 
investigators to characterize the effects of drugs, and toxins on fluid and electrolyte 
transport. I wish to point out that these discoveries will have important clinical 
implications for developing cures to a variety of intestinal diseases and will lead to new 
clinical initiatives being devised to prevent a variety of clinical problems from 
inflammatory bowel disease to ischemic injury of the intestine, as well as be a model for 
secretory diarrhea treatment. These various studies have been submitted to national 
meetings and [the petitioner] has been invited to present his data at both podium 
discussions and in poster presentations. We plan to submit these various studies for 
publication in peer reviewed journals in the near future. 
I would like to comment that [the petitioner] has developed important new technologies 
to conduct in vitro assays of gastric acid secretion and has applied these to his research. 
Further, [the petitioner] is the only investigator in the world that is presently looking at 
these effects on intestinal transport and clearly is providing important new information 
that will have long term clinical ramifications not only in the United States but world 
wide. 
not state, as counsel suggests, that the petitioner has discovered a likely cure for 
cholera, a discovery that would be expected to garner significant attention in the mainstream media. 
The AAO acknowledges that media coverage is not a requirement for the classification sought. 
Nevertheless, if the petitioner is going to advance the claim to have discovered the first likely cure for 
cholera, the AAO cannot ignore that type of discovery tends to garner widespread media attention. 
Without such evidence, the claim appears hyperbolic. 
_ actually states that the petitioner identified the role of calcium sensing receptors and 
speculates that this mechanism could prevent the type of secretory diarrhea associated with cholera .• 
Page 8 
_ does not suggest that any pharmaceutical company or other laboratory is preparing to conduct 
clinical trials in humans based on the petitioner's work. In fact, the record contains no evidence even on 
appeal of any outside interest in this work. Specifically, the record still lacks evidence that any peer 
reviewed journal has accepted this work for publication, that the work has garnered any media attention 
or that any laboratory is planning clinical trials in humans despite the fact that the petitioner presented 
the study in a poster presentation at a regional conference nearly four years ago. 
_ does not suggest that any independent laboratory has adopted or is considering adopting the 
petitioner's new method to measure fluid transport to characterize the effects of drugs. Thus,. 
_ assertion that this technology will lead to new treatments appears highly speculative. The fact 
that the petitioner is the only investigator looking at "these effects on intestinal transport" does not 
create a presumption that the petitioner's results are significant and, in fact, suggests that, as of yet, he is 
not influencing the field to any degree. 
acknowledges, the petitioner's work remains unpublished in peer-reviewed journals. 
, refers to presentations "submitted to national meetings" and invitations to present the 
petitioner's work at meetings generally, it remains that the record documents only a single presentation 
at a national meeting and the record lacks any evidence of the impact of this presentation at the national 
level. 
characterizes the 
at Hospital as "training." asserts that the 
petitioner discovered that calcimimetic R-568 can block the calcium sensing receptor implicated in 
secretory diarrhea and credits the petitioner "with being the first person in the world to discover a 
potential treatment for cholera." USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory assertions.2 Once 
again, for the reasons discussed above, the record is simply not consistent with a major breakthrough in 
the treatment of cholera. 
then praises the petitioner's surgical work at ___ As stated above, 
UlUVIULll1" surgical services to patients at a single hospital doe~s that are national in 
scope. asserts that the petitioner has been involved in other clinical research projects 
and "can be credited with high impact results." does not identity any of these results or 
explain their influence in the field beyond Connecticut. 
In a second letter in the record, __ discusses the petitioner's duties as and his 
future training opportunity at the University of Tennessee, Memphis. This discussion has no relevance 
to the petitioner's influence in the field as of the date of filing or even subsequently. _also 
discusses the petitioner's pen~. _ does not explain how this work has already 
influenced the field. Instead, _discusses the potential ofthis work. 
2 1756, Inc. v. The Attorney General of the United States, 745 F. Supp. 9,15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Page 9 
On appeal, reiterates previous assertions about the i'r np'Jrtlllc:e 
it will be published 
Such speculation does not establish the petitioner's influence as of the date of filing. 
Surgery at _ Hospital, asserts that the 
surgical residency and that the petitioner would 
year 2009-2010." asserts that the 
petitioner has presented his work at three state conferences, one regional conference and two national 
conferences. The record documents only a single national presentation. Regardless, a presentation only 
establishes the dissemination of the petitioner's work. The petitioner must demonstrate the ultimate 
influence of his work. not provide any examples of such an influence. 
asserts that the petitioner 
nerve (a that is commonly used for 
reconstructive purposes) in a minimally invasive fashion." listed as a coauthor of this 
published study, concludes: "This complicated study is now being prepared for submission and will no 
doubt have a profound impact on practice." The unpublished manuscript of this study states: "From 
January 2004 to August 2005, four patients underwent sural nerve harvest using the neurotome device." 
The petitioner did not begin working for a _-affiliated hospital until July 2005. does 
eXI,lai'ln how the can be credited with having "developed" an instrument in use at the _ 
Center as early as January 2004, before his employment there.3 Regardless, the 
letter lacks evidence that the device is being used or evaluated for use at a number of independent 
institutions nationally based on this unpublished study. 
whose practice includes Hospital, asserts that he is 
the petitioner's research on the influence of fungemia on outcomes in ulcer patients. _ 
asserts that based on the petitioner's research, all of patients receive 
preoperative broad spectrum anti-biotic and anti-fungal medications. not demonstrate 
the petitioner's influence beyond Connecticut. 
supports the petition and 
suggests he learned of the petitioner's work at a not provide his curriculum 
vitae with his previous affiliations. discusses the petitioner's presentation on Clostridum 
Difficile Infection and asserts that the petitioner's study reflected that patients admitted from extended 
care facilities should be more closely benefit from an aggressive, earlier surgical 
approach. _ asserts that the follows these recommendations. This study, 
however, reviewed chart data from prior to the petitioner's employment at a _affiliated hospital. 
While data review is useful, _ does not explain how the review of earlier data reflects on the 
petitioner's abilities as a clinical researcher. 
ine in the unpublished manuscript indicates the research originated 
Page 10 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) has held that testimony should not be disregarded 
simply because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) 
(citing cases). The Board also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction 
of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." Id. If testimonial 
evidence lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have been considered above. USCIS 
may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter 
of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately 
responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of 
eligibility; uscrs may, as this decision has done above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 
n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). 
USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other 
information or is in any way questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'!. 
Comm'r. 1972)). 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of significant breakthroughs without 
providing specific examples of how those breakthroughs are already influencing the field beyond 
Connecticut. Merely repeating the legal standards does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof.4 
The petitioner also failed to submit corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of 
the petition. 
Ultimately, the petitioner is a talented surgeon whose benefits as a surgeon would not be national in 
scope as interpreted in NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. While the petitioner has been involved in 
research that his colleagues believe will be significant, that research has yet to be widely disseminated 
such that the AAO is able to gauge its influence in the field. The record contains no evidence such as 
citations or letters from independent hospitals and clinics nationwide affirming their adoption of his 
findings in their official operating procedures, demonstrating any influence beyond Connecticut. 
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 
4 Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), affd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); 
Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.). Similarly, USCIS need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 15. 
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.