dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Systems Engineering

(b)(6)
DAT~iQCT 2 9 2014 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
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 (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:ljwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
It~ h"~/£Lberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center (TSC), denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition. The matter is now before us at the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks an unspecific position in systems engineering at 
When the petitioner filed the petition on his own behalf, his most recent claimed employment had been 
as vice-chancellor of the _ Nigeria. The petitioner asserts that 
an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national 
interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not established that 
an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
Part 3 of the Form r-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, instructs the appellant, "You must check only 
one box indicating that you are filing an appeal or a motion, not both." Nonetheless, the petitioner 
checked both boxes indicating that he was filing an appeal and a motion to reopen. A motion to reopen 
must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The petitioner identifies no new facts and submits no 
new evidence. Therefore, the filing does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen, and the Form 
1-290-B is considered an appeal of the director's decision. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief and copies of materials already in the record. The appeal 
includes a "request for waiver of filing fee due to USCIS error." The regulations make no provision for 
such a waiver. The very purpose of an appeal is to allege error by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS), and the USCrS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) requires the payment of a fee. 
Therefore, there is no legal support for the assertion that USCrS error entitles the petitioner to a waiver 
of the appeal fee. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), 
states: 
The Service [now US CIS] believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test 
as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] 
standard must make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the 
"prospective national benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] 
The burden will rest with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the 
job offer will be in the national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
In reNew York State Dep't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. /d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the 
same minimum qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. /d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. /d. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on July 9, 2013. An 
accompanying introductory statement included the following claims: 
• Beneficiary has been extremely successful as a Distinguished Professor and is 
Internationally Recognized as an Outstanding Researcher; 
• Beneficiary served as President of the for four 
years; 
• Beneficiary currently serves as the Vice-Chancellor/President of 
• Beneficiary served as Vice-Chancellor of the 
• Beneficiary was twice awarded the best Vice-Chancellor Award for the 
(Emphasis in original.) Documentation in the record corroborates the titles that the petitioner has 
held in the past, but the petitioner documented his claimed receipt of "the best Vice-Chancellor 
Award" only indirectly, by submitting copies of two articles published several years after his 
claimed receipt of the award. A July 15, review of a book by the petitioner 's spouse 
mentioned that the petitioner "twice bagged the award for Best Vice-Chancellor in by 
the " A July 24, 2012 article, from a web site that the petitioner did not 
identify, stated that the petitioner was named "Best Vice-Chancellor" in , but not in -the 
article stated that the petitioner was ranked "second best" in after which "(i]t took him only 
two years to reach the very top of the ranking." The articles are neither contemporaneous nor first­
hand evidence that the petitioner received the claimed award, and the two articles offer conflicting 
information about the petitioner ' s claimed receipt of the award in The record contains no 
evidence from the awarding entity, and no explanation for its absence. 
The same introductory statement indicated that the petitioner's "research covers an incredibly wide 
set of topics, from tiny nano-scale biomedical applications to outer-space," and that the petitioner 
"has backed up his research with a truly impressive record of publications .. . . (The petitioner ' s] past 
achievements prove that he is especially qualified to make significant strides that are likely greater 
than those of his peers." 
The introductory statement indicated that the labor certification process cannot take into account the 
petitioner's "proven record of achievement and his unique and innovative set of skills, knowledge 
and background ," because the "labor certification process is a standardized one that only relates to 
minimum requirements of education and experience .... [A] U.S. worker with minimum 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
qualifications might be found." This general objection to the labor certification process would not 
apply to college and university teachers: 
The employer may recruit for college and university teachers under §656.17 or must 
be able to document the alien was selected for the job opportunity in a competitive 
recruitment and selection process through which the alien was found to be more 
qualified than any of the United States workers who applied for the job. 
20 C.P.R. § 656.18(b). NYSDOT noted this provision, although at the time of that decision the 
regulatory citation was different. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218 n.4. The Department of Labor 
regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 
656.18 list additional requirements for this alternative labor certification 
process, such as the requirement at 20 C.F.R. § 656.18(c) that applications for labor certification 
must be filed within 18 months after the employer makes the selection. 
A copy of the petitioner's curriculum vitae, submitted with the petition, stated that the petitioner 
"has had several international teaching/research exposures as an International Scholar-in-Residence 
at Visiting Research Professor at 
University in Houston USA (2007/8) the ____ ~- - --.~ ~- ________ ___ ___ __ , USA (2001) and the 
' The petitioner submitted no evidence from these 
universities to establish the nature, extent, or duration of his work there. 
The statement indicates that "leading experts from throughout the United States and overseas have 
submitted letters of support" (emphasis in original). This assertion suggests a breadth of 
international consensus that the record does not support. All five of the letters submitted with the 
petition are from Nigerian writers with demonstrable ties to the petitioner. Their letters will receive 
full consideration, but the writers are not a representative sampling of "experts from throughout the 
United States and overseas." 
Dr. president of the . has "known [the petitioner] 
since 1976" and served as "a mentor to him." He stated: 
[The petitioner] is a remarkable scientist who [has] already influenced researchers 
around the world .... 
A classic example of his research success is his work concerning Fuzzy Logic. Fuzzy 
Logic is a mathematical technique for dealing with imprecise data and problems that 
have many solutions rather than one single solution .... 
Fuzzy logic has become very relevant in machine, process or systems control, and 
particularly as a means of making machines more capable and responsive by 
resolving intermediate categories in between states hitherto classified on bivalent 
logic .... As part of his work on this topic, [the petitioner] derived Fourier series 
representation for computation of membership functions for . . . more complex 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
distributions. Furthermore, he established its efficacy by applying it to a Natural Gas 
Distribution Network based on a fuzzy controller device built on his research. 
Specifically, he developed an embedded "Fuzzy controller" to measure temperature 
and pressure and produce an output that can represent input to additional subsystems 
or systems. The device that [the petitioner] developed has clearly demonstrated that 
the technique can indeed be incorporated in real-world engineering systems. 
Dr. _ professor and dean of Engineering at the l. _____ _ (where the 
petitioner worked from 1983 to 2007), stated: 
[The petitioner's] research focuses on generating advances in the field of systems 
engineering, including work on robotics and systems integration .... 
[The petitioner] has generated very interesting findings concermng serial jointed 
manipulators used in robotic arms .... 
[The petitioner's] work on this topic is important because the inverse or reverse 
kinematics problem for robot arm position placement is a fundamental challenge in 
everyday robotics. For serial linked manipulators, his solution is a perfect mimic and 
replication of the dexterity exhibited by the human arm in day to day problem 
solving .... I can attest that [the petitioner's] work on this topic is truly impressive. 
In a letter dated February 14, 2013, Dr. 
, stated: 
professor and vice-chancellor of the 
Among the most interesting aspects of [the petitioner's] systems engineering research 
is how it crosses so many different fields, from structural engineering such as large­
scale dams, to robotics, and even to biomedical research. For example, as part of his 
research [the petitioner] generated significant findings concerning Huntington's 
disease [HD] .. . . [The petitioner's] work on this topic sought to promote a better 
understanding of the chorea associated with HD .... 
What makes his work on this topic so exciting is that science has now reached a stage 
in the field of nanomedicine where in the near future nanorobots can be introduced 
into the body system of a patient which will release [a] drug . . . at programmed 
intervals to curb an ailment. The purpose of [the petitioner's] research therefore was 
to design a platform for this mechanism. As a first step he successfully designed a 
simulation model that captures the excitatory post synaptic presentation ... resulting 
in the staccato nature of the gait (i.e., the jerk) in the arm of an HD patient ... using a 
novel artificial neural network ... technique. His success on this project is [a] step in 
the right direction towards viable electroconvulsive therapy for the management of 
the Huntington's Disease. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The above letters included details about some of the petitioner's past research ventures, but did not 
establish the extent to which the field as a whole has implemented the petitioner's work. 
The signers of the remaining two letters were co-authors with the petitioner of 
The letter signed by Dr. 
advanced engineering specialist at is dated February 25, 2013. Apart from 
biographical information in the introductory paragraphs, the body of Dr. letter is identical to 
the body of the February 14, 2013 letter from Dr. quoted above. 
Dr. now a professor at the did not discuss any 
particulars of the petitioner's work, stating instead that the United States needs "to attract and retain 
great researchers like [the petitioner]" in order "to ensure that our country's research programs are 
the best in the 
world." 
The petitioner submitted examples of his published work, but no documentation (such as citation 
figures) to establish the impact that his publications have had on his field, or to show that its impact 
exceeds that of other researchers' work in the same field. 
With respect to the petitioner's claim that he seeks employment at the initial submission 
included no documentation from that school to establish that the school intended to employ him, or 
to identify the decision that he would fill. 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on November 21, 2013, instructing the petitioner to 
"establish that the beneficiary's proposed employment is national in scope" and to "establish that the 
beneficiary's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the nation" (emphasis in original). 
The director stated: "The petitioner must establish that the beneficiary's skills or background are 
unique and innovative and serve the national interest." 
In response, the petitioner submitted copies of all the initial exhibits, with a statement protesting that 
"the RFE issued on this case ... appears to be almost entirely boilerplate," which "raised concerns 
that the USCIS may have misplaced the original set of supporting documents submitted with this 
case." The purpose of the RFE is to solicit further information, rather than to evaluate what the 
petitioner had already submitted. The lack of discussion of the petitioner's initial evidence does not, 
by itself, invalidate the RFE or establish that the director had ignored or lost the initial evidence. 
The petitioner's response to the RFE included the assertion that his "internationally published 
research" satisfies the "national scope" prong of the NYSDOT national interest test. With respect to 
his impact on the field, the petitioner's response to the RFE repeated the list of accomplishments and 
titles from the initial submission, and contested the director's assertion that "[t]he petitioner must 
establish that the beneficiary's skills or background are unique and innovative and serve the national 
interest," because the phrase "unique and innovative" does not appear in NYSDOT. The precedent 
decision states: 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
[T]he petitioner ... 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 .... The alien must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
field of endeavor. ... 
Because, by statute, "exceptional ability" is not by itself sufficient cause for a 
national interest waiver, the benefit which the alien presents to his or her field of 
endeavor must greatly exceed the "achievements and significant contributions" 
contemplated in the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
/d. at 218. The petitioner's response to the RFE quoted and emphasized the first sentence quoted 
above. In context, it is clearly insufficient for the petitioner simply to show that he possesses 
qualifications or credentials superior to available United States workers. 
The petitioner submitted two letters from Dr. professor and chair of the 
Department of Engineering Technology at In a letter to USCIS dated December 9, 2013, Dr. 
stated: 
[The petitioner] has collaborated with for quite some 
time, and I look forward to having him work for the university on a full-time and 
permanent basis once his immigration case has been approved .... 
Upon arriving in the United States, [the petitioner] will be a member of the 
Department of Engineering Technology .... 
[H]aving worked both in the research field and in academia, I am fully aware that 
being chosen to serve as the President of your country's 
is strong evidence of research and professional success . 
. . . [The petitioner's] achievements rank far above many other researchers who have 
previously received approvals on NIW [national interest waiver] cases. 
The record does not contain evidence to support many of Dr. claims of fact. Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). For instance, the 
record does not describe the process by which the ~ . selects its officials, 
and therefore the petitioner's former position there is not necessarily evidence of the significance of 
his past contributions. 
Dr. other letter, dated December 17, 2013 and addressed to the petitioner, reads, in 
part: "This letter is to confirm our previous correspondences and conversations regarding our 
university's offer to you of a position teaching and doing research within Department of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Engineering Technology." As noted above, university teaching positions are subject to different 
labor certification procedures, provided the employer applies for labor certification within 18 months 
of the competitive recruitment and selection process. 
A second copy of the petitioner's curriculum vitae repeated the list of universities in the United 
States where the petitioner claimed to have worked, but with a change of dates. Whereas the 
petitioner had previously claimed to have worked at in "2007 /8," the revised curriculum vitae 
showed the date as "(2007-)," indicating a still-active, open-ended appointment. The petitioner did 
not acknowledge or explain the change. 
The director denied the petition on February 19, 2014, stating that the petitioner had not established 
eligibility under the NYSDOT standards. The director found that a claim of eligibility under 
NYSDOT, "minus substantive supporting documentation," is not sufficient to establish eligibility. 
The director added: "[Y]ou again failed to show how the rationale the court [sic] used in the 
NYSDOT case would apply to you in seeking the National Interest Waiver, especially since you are 
not doing currently working [sic] in your field." 
The brief submitted on appeal addresses the issue of the petitioner's current employment, calling the 
director's assertion that the petitioner is not "currently working" "an extraordinary factual error," 
and stating: 
The 100% boilerplate RFE ... did NOT specifically ask for evidence that he was 
"doing currently working" in his field .... If the wanted more evidence on that 
specific issue, then the had a legal obligation to state such a request explicitly so 
that [the petitioner] could submit more detailed evidence. Nevertheless, the hundreds 
of pages of documents submitted with this case already satisfied that issue. 
Also - without conceding the issue about his current job - even if he was not 
currently working in his field, the I-140 NIW process is always about the individual's 
ability to impact his field in the years to come. 
(Emphasis in original.) It is correct that there is no specific requirement that the petitioner be 
employed at the time he filed the petition, but his employment status is relevant when weighing the 
claim that his expertise is in high demand. 
The petitioner does not explain how the previously submitted documents "already satisfied fthe l 
issue" of his current employment, nor does he specify what that employment is. Dr. 
letters did not indicate that already employs the petitioner, but rather that the petitioner will 
take his position at a future time "[u]pon arriving in the United States"- although the petitioner was 
already in the United States before Dr. wrote that letter. 
The petitioner's most recent claimed employment is as vice-chancellor of the at 
in Nigeria, but the petitioner was in the United States when he filed the petition, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
and throughout this proceeding he has used a mailing address in Texas. Part 3, line 13 of Form l-
140 instructed the petitioner to specify when he arrived in the United States, but the petitioner left 
this line blank, while also indicating (on Part 3, line 15) that he was in the United States as a B-1 
nonimmigrant visitor for business. The record does not specify the nature of the petitioner's claimed 
temporary business in the United States. 
The petitioner claimed to be a visiting scholar at various universities in the United States, but the 
record contains no evidence from those universities to confirm the claim. See Matter of Softici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165. The December 17, 2013 letter from Dr. referred to a "position 
teaching and doing research," but specified no title and included no official university 
documentation establishing a formal offer of employment. 
When he filed the petition, the petitioner had been away from his last claimed employment in 
Nigeria for an unspecified period of time, with no documented employment (or employment 
authorization) in the United States. The claimed job offer lacks basic details about the nature of the 
job. Dr. the petitioner's past colleague and collaborator, stated that he was "part of the 
team that has recruited" the petitioner, but the record does not identify the other members of the 
claimed team, and the petitioner submitted no direct evidence that has made a job offer. These 
facts, by themselves, do not prove that the petitioner has no intention of working in the United 
States, but they are relevant to the issue. 
The director was not negligent in failing to raise the issue of current employment in the RFE, 
because, as the petitioner asserts, such evidence is not a direct requirement for the benefit sought. 
Even if the director had erred by not requesting evidence of current employment in the RFE, the 
petitioner has not shown on appeal that this claimed error prejudiced the outcome of the decision. 
The petitioner does not say what he would have submitted had the director requested evidence of 
current employment. Any evidence that the petitioner could have submitted in response to the RFE 
could also be submitted on appeal. On appeal, however, he addressed the issue only indirectly, 
providing no new evidence or relevant 
information, and asserting that the answer could be found at 
some unspecified place within the "hundreds of pages of documents" submitted previously. The 
petitioner has not submitted any evidence to establish that the director made an "extraordinary 
f~ctual error" by concluding that the petitioner is not "currently working." 
The appellate brief repeats the earlier assertion that the RFE lacked specificity. The requirements of 
the NYSDOT national interest test are, by design, general and flexible, in order to apply to a broad 
range of occupations. The director did not request specific, identifiable pieces of evidence in the 
RFE because the NYSDOT test does not warrant such a request. Even then, the RFE did identify 
some examples of evidence that the petitioner could submit, such as "awards for work in the field," 
accompanied by evidence of their significance. 
The list in the RFE also included "peer reviewed articles," which the petitioner had previously 
submitted and which the director did not specifically acknowledge or discuss. Nevertheless, the 
burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The existence of the petitioner's articles is not, by itself, 
evidence of eligibility, and their submission did not establish a presumption of eligibility that the 
director was obliged to rebut. The articles show that the petitioner has published on a range of subjects, 
but they do not establish the extent, if any, to which those articles have influenced the field as a whole. 
The letters that the petitioner submitted discussed some of the petitioner's specific projects, but the 
record does not establish that the petitioner's work has had a significant effect on the treatment of 
Huntington's disease, natural gas distribution, robotics, or any other field that his work is said to touch. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
cases). The BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." !d. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have received consideration 
above. users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (eomm'r 1988). However, 
users is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USeiS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. users may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 165. When 
considering the assertion that these letters represent a range of independent opinions, we cannot 
overlook the petitioner's submission of two letters containing identical language, indicating that at 
least one of these letters was authored by someone other than the person who signed it. 
The petitioner, on appeal, states that the director "claimed that [the petitioner] did not submit 
'substantive supporting documentation' for his case. This statement is factually incorrect. ... [The 
petitioner] has submitted hundreds of pages of evidence." The director did not simply state that the 
petitioner failed to submit supporting documentation. Rather, the director stated that the petitioner 
did not submit "substantive supporting documentation" in response to the RFE. The petitioner 
claims, on appeal, to have "submitted extensive additional evidence" in response to the RFE, but the 
only new exhibits submitted at that time were Dr. two letters. All the other evidence in the 
RFE response consisted of copies of materials submitted previously. Duplicates of prior submissions 
are not "additional evidence"; they add nothing of substance to the record. 
The petitioner has shown that he has held important academic positions in Nigeria. The record does 
not show how he attained these positions, and therefore there is no evidence to support the assertion 
that the petitioner's past titles are, themselves, evidence that his admission will serve the national 
interest in the future. The petitioner has been a prolific author of research papers, but he has not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
shown how these published works have influenced his field. In short, the appellate brief contests 
several of the director's findings in general terms, but offers no affirmative evidence to rebut those 
findings. 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contemplates that his influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
field of endeavor." /d. at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole"). 
As is clear from the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person qualified to engage in a 
profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based on national 
interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to grant national interest 
waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than on the merits of the 
individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not established that a waiver 
of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
We will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 128. Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.