dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Transportation Engineering

identifying rlqta deleted to 
prevent C!e.. . ,:Iwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLIC COpy 
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 
DATE: • 1 8 2012 OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member ofthe Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursnant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § I I 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please tind the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1 )(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days ofthe decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
(!J(X9;.-, -
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks 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 civil transportation engineer with the California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans). 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 ofthe United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a statement from counsel and citation information. 
Section 203(b) ofthe 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) Waiveroflob Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the 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 defme the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific defmition 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, IOlst Cong., 1st Sess., II (1989). 
Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (lMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] believes it appropriate 
to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien 
seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing significantly 
above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" [required of aliens 
seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the alien to establish 
that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the national interest. Each 
case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation (NYSDOT), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 
1998), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national 
interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit. Next, the. petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 
Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a 
substantially greater degree than would an available United States worker having the same minimum 
qualifications. 
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. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The intention behind the term "prospective" is to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. 
The AAO also notes that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By 
statute, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification 
requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given 
alien seeks classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on January 25,2010. In an accompanying statement, 
counsel outlined the basis for the waiver application: 
What makes [the petitioner] unique is that he has a background in using remotely 
sensed imagery in graphic information systems. This is a cutting-edge field that can 
do much to improve the design and placement of highways to avoid environmental 
problems such as flooding. There are very few engineers with this background either 
in the United States or internationally. [The petitioner's] work has resulted in 
Page 4 
published works that have been cited by other researchers internationally, something 
that does not happen often in the field of engineering. 
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 U.S. is an issue under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. NYSDOT at 221. An alien's job-related training in a new 
method, whatever its importance, cannot be considered to be an achievement or contribution 
comparable to the innovation of that new method. ld. at 221 n.7. For the purposes of this 
proceeding, the petitioner's "background in ... a cutting-edge field" is less important than what he 
has done with that background. The AAO will therefore focus on the assertion that the petitioner's 
published work has influenced other engineers. 
The petitioner submits background information relating to the National Consortium on Remote 
Sensing in Transportation-Environmental Assessment (NCRST-E), of State 
University (MSU) is a member. The petitioner performed some work 
graduate student at MSU. The petitioner also submitted copies of two of his papers, WlllC;ll 
called "articles" although there is no evidence that they appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Instead, 
the records indicate that the two papers were presented at conferences in 2002 and 2004, 
respectively. According to counsel, "[t]hese articles are the result of independent research 
conducted by [the petitioner] at his time as a 
graduate student." Counsel claimed: "it is extreme an student to publish 
research papers and that such research is considered to be cutting-edge .... [I]t is very unusual for a 
graduate student to present research." 
The petitioner submitted no evidence to support the claim that engineering students rarely present their 
research, or "that such research is considered to be cutting-edge." The unsupported assertions of 
counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. I, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 
506 (BIA 1980). With respect to the assertion that such students also rarely publish their work, the 
record contains no evidence of published work (as opposed to presentations) by the petitioner. 
Counsel's tendency to exaggerate is evident from the observation that the petitioner "is licensed as a 
Professional Engineer in the State ofCalifomia .... [R]eaching this level of engineering proficiency 
shows an extremely high-caliber knowledge of engineering principles." This language implies that 
the petitioner's licensure somehow sets him apart from other engineers in California. According to 
section 6704(a) of California's Professional Engineers Act (submitted by the petitioner), "no person 
shall practice civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering unless appropriately licensed or specifically 
exempted from licensure under this chapter." This state law indicates that licensure is a basic 
requirement, not a special distinction, for engineers in California. An unsigned statement in the 
record acknowledges that "engineers must be licensed to offer their services to the public." The 
petitioner's licensure, therefore, does not demonstrate or imply a higher level of competence. 
Page 5 
Cited statistics about passage and failure rates of state examinations are irrelevant, because every 
licensed engineer in California passed the examinations as the petitioner did. The petitioner, as a 
qualified engineer, is better qualified than an unqualified engineer, but this obvious and axiomatic 
assertion sheds no light on his eligibility for the national interest waiver. As section 203(b)(2)(C) of 
the Act makes clear, licensure does not demonstrate exceptional ability, let alone meet the higher 
threshold of the national interest waiver. 
Counsel added that the independent citations of the petitioner's "articles show the importance of [the 
petitioner's] work and its applicability in different situations." Counsel has acknowledged that the 
petitioner's research papers arose from his graduate studies rather than his later efforts at Caltrans. 
Therefore, at best, the citations establish the importance of the petitioner's student research, not his 
subsequent employment. 
The petitioner documented eight citations of his 2004 conference presentation, and one citation of 
his other, undated paper. One paper appeared in an engineering journal in 2006; all of the remaining 
papers appear to be conference rather than published articles. Two of the nine citations 
are self-citations consortium manager and the petitioner's co-author. The 
authors of the papers Japan, Italy, Germany, Argentina and Iran. Most of the 
citing papers are undated, but none of them cited any source dated after 2006. The petitioner did not 
show that these seven independent citations demonstrate an unusual level of impact or influence in 
his field. 
The petitioner submitted six witness letters with the initial filing. 
the petitioner's "major advisor during his graduate work," stated a 
strong expertise in the areas of environmental engineering and infrastructure management through 
the applications of remotely sensed imagery to graphic information systems. He was instrumental in 
the design of several key transportation networks in the Jackson, MS, metropolitan area." Prof. 
Truax did not elaborate. 
a postdoctoral research associate at MSU, has not W()rKe:u 
;;pj";t;"nI>T have, at different times, both collaborated with 
stated: 
I am familiar with [the petitioner's] work through his research publication. He has 
made original scientific contributions in the field of Remote Sensing and specifically 
to Transportation and Infrastructure Planning .... His research has inspired me and in 
fact, I used a lot of his research findings in my past researches and developed work. 
[The petitioner] is one of the first researchers to utilize Object Based Analysis to 
transportation feature extraction and application to Transportation and Infrastructure 
Planning. . .. As part of his study he explored products and applications of two 
satellites - "QuickBird and Ikonos" multispectral imagery for extracting 
transportation features, once the features are extracted they can assist in planning 
transportation corridors. The benefit of this method is that it saves time and allows 
Page 6 
for accurate and speedy classification and in turn helps with the planning phase of 
road construction, railroad relocation and other major civil transportation projects .... 
[The petitioner] is currently working on "Trade Corridor Improvement" projects, that 
are considered one of the most important projects in the Nation as it will Improve 
mobility across the country and will boost the quality of life and economic 
competitiveness of United States by developing efficient, safe delivery of goods to 
and from our ports and borders and by reducing the environmental impacts from 
goods movement activities to protect the public health. 
director of planning and special projects at Waggoner Engineering, Jackson, 
Mississippi, stated: 
[The petitioner] and I first met during 2004 at 
_ where he worked on several 
~with Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHW A) design criteria. Engineering and other 
requirements involved in these projects were urban program control, modeling 
processes, community impact assessments, route location planning using aerial 
imagery, economical path analysis to increase vehicular capacity, environmental 
evaluation and right-of-way acquisition. He did a commendable job on these projects 
and received praises for his work 
Other projects [the petitioner] worked on include a statewide floodplain mapping 
program. . . . [The petitioner] was skilled in the use of hydrology and hydraulic 
analysis, terrain flood boundary delineation and the digital production 
of the new He also served as project 
organization. 
stated: 
[The petitioner] has unique skills and varied training and ... has greatly increased the 
awareness and understanding of remote sensing technologies and products. He is 
surely one of the brightest engineers I have come across in my 12 years of emergency 
management career. 
Page? 
I first met [the 2004, when he started working 
firm and the prime contractor for the 
The an on-going ... part ofthe nationwide 
collaborative effort. . to update the nation's flood hazard data. The effort ... 
provides the data in a digital format in accordance by 
FEMA. [The petitioner] was the lead engineer with and 
played a key role with his expertise in Remote Sensing and GIS. If it was not for [the 
petitioner's] skills it would not have been possible to use Light Detection and 
Ranging (LIDAR) and Digital Elevation Model (DEM) information to conduct terrain 
analysis and create shaded relief raster maps that were very useful for scoping 
meetings with the community. He played a key role in this project, as it was very 
important to locate potential flood plain problem areas. [The petitioner] did an 
outstanding job in a critical position. 
Among his other important duties at_, [the petitioner] is a Disaster Service 
Worker (DSW-State), participating in the Post-Disaster Safety Assessment Program 
(SAP) of California. His experience in specialty in infrastructure and facility safety 
assessments is critical, as one of the most important post-disaster activities is to 
determine the safety and functionality ofkey facilities .... 
Few engineers are capable of performing the work that [the petitioner] is doing. I was 
very impressed with [the petitioner's] work because of his innovative ideas and his 
demonstration of superior remote sensing knowledge. 
Mario Orso, corridor director for Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) projects at Caltrans, 
stated: 
[A] $1.3 billion portfolio of goods-movement projects ... includes establishing a new 
International Port of Entry (East Otay Mesa POE) and a new state highway (State 
Route 11), plus a number of highway projects that are vital to improving national and 
international trade .... 
[The petitioner's] work as Project Lead Engineer for the TCIF Corridor projects is 
invaluable to improving mobility to United States motorists. His strong technical 
knowledge as well as his record ofpast achievements and consulting experience make 
him an irreplaceable asset to the Caltrans team and bring us closer to achieving the 
goal of creating the most efficient highway system in the nation .... 
[The petitioner] is specifically working on Port Access projects that will alleviate traffic 
congestion by capacity expansion, improve automobile and pedestrian safety by 
Page 8 
increasing mobility and relieving traffic congestion, and provide the necessary 
infrastructure that will allow the continued movement of goods through the nation .... 
[The petitioner's] research integration with his current work has involved planning 
and developing footprints for aerial imagery mapping and image processing, that has 
helped to reduce cost by streamlining the acquisition and processing of imagery 
required for the project design phase. [The petitioner] has also published multiple 
papers in this regard and has received recognition in this specialized field from the 
international community. His work has been cited numerous times by researchers 
from different countries (more than 20 citations from nine countries). [The 
petitioner] is able to uSe the cutting-edge methods that he developed at the National 
Science Foundation-Engineering Research Center, Mississippi State University. [The 
petitioner] is one of perhaps a dozen individuals nationwide with this skill set. ... 
[T]here is only a handful of individuals in the United States that are as well-qualified 
and promising as [the petitioner] in the kind of work that he does. Indeed, he stands 
apart from his colleagues as a truly exceptional engineer. 
made claims of fact that the record does not support. He stated that the petitioner 
"published multiple papers" with "more than 20 citations." The record identifies only two 
conference presentations, with no evidence of publication, and the petitioner documented less than 
ten citations of those two presentations. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence 
is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SajJici, 
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)). 
deputy district director of engineering stated: 
Although I do not know [the petitioner] on a personal level, I reviewed his work when 
I lead [sic] the Design Division. Therefore, my relationship with him is of a 
professional nature. 
Most recently I worked with [the petitioner] on 
_ This $15.5 million, 2.1 miles project ... includes the extension of an 
auxiliary lane, bridge widening, retaining walls, and sound walls. For this project, I 
reviewed [the petitioner's] Fact Sheets for Exceptions to Advisory Design Standards, 
his construction scheduling analysis using the Critical Path Method (CPM), and 
construction plans for pollutant discharge . 
. . . [The petitioner] was responsible for the engineering analysis to determine whether 
the implementation of nonstandard feature[s] would still ensure the safety of the 
traveling public .... 
Page 9 
[The petitioner) developed the construction phase of the 
This process involved identifying all required 
activities to complete the project, estimating the completion time for each activity, 
and the dependence between activities .... The CPM is an essential aspect of project 
planning and requires a high level of understanding of construction methods and 
practices. 
permit pro gram controls 
water pollution by regulating sources po into waters of the 
United States .... Under these federal regulations [the petitioner) provided with [sic) 
the selection and implementation of construction site 
_ for temporary water pollution control and erosion control, based on practices 
required under the Clean Water Act. 
... I do not have any reservation in stating that his outstanding knowledge and 
experience are in the national interest ofthe U.S., and sincerely recommend approval 
for his application for permanent residency status. 
have described the petitioner's work on specific projects, these descriptions 
do not explain how the petitioner stands apart from his colleagues to an extent that warrants a waiver 
of the job offer requirement that normally applies to qualified workers in his occupation. 
On March 29, 2010, the director issued a request for evidence, instructing the petitioner to establish 
the impact and influence of his current work. In response, the petitioner submitted three new witness 
letters and further evidence about the petitioner's credentials and one of his projects. 
in his second letter on the petitioner's behalf, provided more details about the 
onthellllll"IIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIII"illl 
was the technical expert and lead engineer 
during the first delivery of the countywide map 
frame:w()rk for future deliverables .... 
The various maps prepared by [the petitioner), using the cutting-edge techniques he 
developed, provided the "best option" location for future roads and development. 
These maps formed a foundation used by other development planners. This has also 
been used as a blueprint that is currently being used by the state of Mississippi to map 
all the other counties to guide its growth and avoid future flooding. I am convinced 
that [the petitioner's) work has saved lives and minimized property damage .... 
Page 10 
[The petitioner] has undoubtedly paved the way for understanding how satellite 
imagery can be effectively used in engineering projects .... [The petitioner's] 
research has had a direct impact on the planning of environmentally friendly, at least 
environmentally neutral transportation corridors. Based on his track record to date, it 
is evident that [the petitioner] is an engineer whose efforts have greatly advanced our 
knowledge in a number of areas including remote sensing and geospatial applications. 
stated that the petitioner's past 
research "has helped to increase awareness and interest in utilizing remote sensing technologies to 
expedite and standardize the environmental review process for transportation projects among people 
in the industry." 
The third letter is in the name dinectc)r of but the 
signature on the letter belongs to stated that the petitioner is one 0 f 
"two certified ' and as such "plays a 
critical role ... to provide _ capabilities in responding to catastrophic emergencies." This 
assertion attests to the district's need for SAP engineers, but does not explain why it is in the 
national interest for the petitioner to be one of them. Furthermore, the petitioner's SAP functions 
appear to be ancillary rather than central to his duties at Caltrans. 
also asserted that the petitioner's "expertise, background and experience are critical in 
ongoing projects, that are time sensitive and any delays could harm the projects source 
of funding." The record contains no corroboration from the "source of funding" itself. 
out the petitioner's "preparation of [the] design exception fact sheet for the 
lane widening project. He prepared the engineering report to document 
implementation of two nonstandard features - cross slopes and super­
elevation runoff lengths, there by [sic] contributing to significant project cost savings estimated 
approximately at $13 Million." 
A copy of the fact sheet mentioned above shows that the projected savings would result not from any 
innovative new techniques, but from waiving existing standards and thereby avoiding unnecessary 
land purchases and construction work. The petitioner submitted no documentation to allow a 
comparison between his work and that of others in similar positions, and thereby show that the 
petitioner's work has consistently resulted in greater savings, without compromising safety, than the 
work of other engineers at Caltrans and other, comparable agencies. 
Clearly, the quoted witnesses are confident in the petitioner's abilities, and the record establishes the 
petitioner's competence and credentials as an engineer. The record, however, is much less 
persuasive with regard to claims that "the industry" has adopted and implemented the petitioner's 
work. The record contains no quantitative data to measure the benefits that have resulted from the 
petitioner's asserted influence on his field. 
The petitioner submits a copy ofa certificate, showing that he "has been elected MEMBER" of the 
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Counsel stated that member status "is a nominated 
and elected designation. [The petitioner] could not apply for such status." The record contradicts 
this assertion. An accompanying document, marked with the ASCE logo and entitled 
"Advancement to Member Status," states: "All applications will be thoroughly considered by the 
Membership Application Review Committee," which "meets once monthly to review scheduled 
applications." The document indicates that "fewer than 9% of ASCE members" hold full member 
status, but it does not list the other membership grades to allow a meaningful comparison. Iflesser 
grades are for students or for non-engineers who merely share an interest in engineering, then the 
petitioner's member status is not significant. Furthermore, the record does not show what 
percentage of applications ASCE approves or denies. The only listed "Member Grade Criteria" are 
that the applicant "[m]ust be a licensed Professional Engineer or Professional Land Surveyor," and 
"[m]ust have had responsible charge of important work in engineering or surveying and be qualified 
to direct, conceive, plan, or design engineering works." Even then, ASCE will waive the licensure 
requirement for applicants who "have more than 5 years of responsible charge of engineering 
experience. " 
The director denied the petition on October 18, 201 O. The director acknowledged the intrinsic merit 
and national scope ofthe petitioner's occupation, but found that the petitioner had not shown "a past 
history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole." The director also 
found that "the petitioner has not shown an unusual level of interest in his work as to distinguish him 
from his peers." The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of citation information, but 
concluded that "the petitioner's published research has [a] very minimal citation record." 
On appeal, counsel observes that the petitioner "engaged in applied research rather than theoretical 
research .... Applied research is much less reliant on publications and more reliant on applications." 
Applied research that is specific to one particular project (such as where to place a bridge, or how 
steeply to grade a road) is inherently local, and offers no direct benefit outside of the project. 
Research with broader applications would be appropriate for publication or other dissemination, and 
indeed it is difficult to see how such work would be of much benefit without that distribution. 
The petitioner's presented papers date from his graduate studies, and the director correctly observed 
that the petitioner had not documented the significant or lasting influence of those papers. On 
appeal, the petitioner submits a printout from http://scholar.google.com, listing 17 citations of his 
2004 paper, and counsel claims (but does not document) the existence 0 f another ten "Citation 
Publications not captured by Google Scholar." 
The petitioner has documented additional citations not previously reflected in the record. The 
petitioner's papers and the related citation evidence, however, do not show that the petitioner 
continues to produce scholarly work of this kind. There is, therefore, no reason to conclude that the 
petitioner will prospectively benefit the United States by producing published or presented research. 
It appears, instead, that this research was an element of the petitioner's now long-completed graduate 
education. Counsel effectively acknowledges as much, by stressing the distinction between "applied 
Page 12 
research" and "theoretical research." If the petitioner no longer conducts research for publication or 
presentation, then his past history of such work offers no prospective benefit to the United States. 
Also, ifthe principal benefit of the petitioner's past research lies in the actual use of remote sensing 
techniques developed or refined by the petitioner, then the petitioner needs to demonstrate the extent 
to which other engineers actually use those techniques. Here, the petitioner has not even shown that 
he himself continues to use those methods in his work at Caltrans. 
Turning to the petitioner's present work, counsel states that the petitioner's "past accomplishments 
have resulted in saving many millions of dollars for the state of California .... [The petitioner's] 
work continues to serve as a model for others and has resulted in environmentally improved 
transportation." As noted previously, the petitioner submitted his $13 million savings proposal in 
isolation, with no evidence to show that this proposal stands out from those offered by other 
engineers, or indeed is typical of the petitioner's own work. 
The NYSDOT precedent decision concerned an engineer with a state department of transportation, 
praised by colleagues and supervisors for his knowledge of advanced techniques. In many ways, 
that case closely parallels the matter at hand. For example, much of the following passage from the 
precedent decision also applies here: 
Reports submitted on appeal reflect substantial cost savings on projects on which the 
beneficiary worked. The record does not show that these savings are due to the 
beneficiary'S involvement, or that comparable projects executed without the 
beneficiary incurred significantly higher costs. The reports merely indicated that the 
projects on which the beneficiary worked could have cost more than they actually did. 
Id. at 222. The similar fact patterns between the two proceedings point to similar outcomes. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest ofthe 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.