dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Complexity Leadership

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-A-0-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 22,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a researcher and scholar in the field of complexity leadership. seeks classification as 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. S'ee Immigration and Nationality 1\ct (the 
Act)§ 203(b)(2). 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement that is normally attached to this immigrant classification. See 
§ 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification. when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The Director found that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he 
had not established that a waiver of a job offer would be in the national interest. The matter is now 
before us on appeal. On appeaL the Petitioner contends that he satisfies the national interest waiver 
requirements. Upon de novo review. we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate his or her 
qualification for the underlying visa classification. as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences arts or business. Because this classification normally 
requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer. a separate showing is required 
to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
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 
(b)(6)
Matter (?f A-A-0-
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) National interest waiver .... the Attorney General 1 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. 
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. 101 st Cong .. 1st Sess ., 11 ( 1989). 
Maller (?l New York State Department (~f Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215. 217-18 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT) , set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a 
request for a national interest waiver. First. a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she seeks 
employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next. a petitioner must show that 
the proposed benefit will be national in scope. !d. Finally. the petitioner seeking the waiver must 
establish that he or she 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. a petitioner 's a ssurance 
that he or she will, in the future. serve the national interest cannot suffice to establish prospective 
national benefit. !d. at 219. Rather. a petitioner must justify projection s of future benefit to the 
national interest by establishing a history of demonstrable achievem ent with some degree of 
int1uence on the field as a whole. !d. at 219. n.6. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitoner holds a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership from . a Master of Business 
Administration from and a Master of Science in Political Science ti·om 
The Director determined 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 
1 Pursuant to section 1517 of the Homeland Security Act of 1002 ( .. HSA''). Pub. L. No . I 07-296. 116 Stat. 2135 . 2311 
(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2012)), any reference to the Attorne y General in a provision of the Act describin g functions 
that were transf erred from the Attorne y General or other D epartment of Justice official to the Department of Homeland 
Securit y by the HSA ··shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary'" of Homeland Securit y. Sl!e also 6 U.S. C. * 541 note 
(2012) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1551 note(2012). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-0-
of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest according to the 
three-pronged analysis set forth in NY..SDOT. 
A. Substantial Intrinsic Merit 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition tor Alien Worker. on June 5, 2014. proposing to 
work as a teacher and researcher at a college or university. At the time of tiling. the Petitioner was 
working as an ··oflice Manager .. for a financial services company in 
South Carolina. In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) , the Petitioner stated that 
he "will carry out research on 
He indicated that his research responsibilities will 
include conducting independent and original research; writing and reviewing research proposals for 
conference events; disseminating research findings via publications in peer reviewed journals and 
presentations at professional meetings: and collating, analyzing. and evaluating research data. 
According to the Petitioner's curriculum vitae , however, his duties as an officer manager tor 
did not involve complexity leadership research. 
The Director's decision noted that although the Petitioner seeks to serve the national interest through 
his employment as a complexity leadership researcher, he was working 40 hours per week as an 
office manager for Accordingly. the Director found that the Petitioner had 
not demonstrated that he seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. The Director also 
concluded that the Petitioner's work as a researcher for was beneficial only to 
the university; however, the scope of the benefit resulting from his work relates to the second prong 
ofthe NYSDOTanalysis and will be addressed there. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a September 2015 letter from 
of education administration at 
investigator with the Petitioner on a grant proposal for the 
for a project entitled ' 
an assistant professor 
states that she is co-principal 
In addition. 
mentions that the Petitioner is part of a team of academics proposing "a series of research 
projects and workshops to investigate and implement enhancements in the Nigerian educational 
context" and that his '·research under the grant would compare faculty forms of creativity and 
productivity in research endeavors in Nigeria and the U.s:· Furthem10re. maintains that the 
Petitioner "is engaged in helping the U.S. to understand Africa better, while at the same time 
contributing to the development of African institutions, both of which are in the U.S. national 
interest.'' also points to the Petitioner's invited conference presentations on African 
education, politics, ethics, and corruption. 
The Petitioner's appellate submission includes a copy of the research proposal and a 
"Statement of Research Interest" explaining his intent to continue educational leadership research 
examining the role of teams and their interactions to explicate creativity in organizations. The 
aforementioned documents and information provided by adequately demonstrate that the 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter (?f A-A-0-
Petitioner's proposed research endeavors have substantial intrinsic merit. Accordingly, we tind that 
the Petitioner meets the first prong of the Nl:'JDOT national interest analysis, and the Director's 
detetmination on this issue is withdrawn. 
B. National in Scope 
The Petitioner stated that his research in the field of complexity leadership ·'will drastically impact 
Americans' safety. and ability to pioneer new leadership technologies on a global scale" and. theref(xe. 
that his work is in the national interest of the United States. The second prong of the N }'S'DOT 
national interest analysis requires that the benefit arising from the Petitioner's work will be national 
in scope. As noted previously, the Director determined that the Petitioner had not met this 
requirement because the benefit of his research was limited to in Nigeria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits a letter from associate professor of management. 
explaining that the proposed benefit arising from the Petitioner's work with 
has national scope. indicated that the Petitioner's ·'research with 
is a U.S.-Nigerian collaborative 
cffor1 that will not just benefit Africa, but also the U.S., as this is just one of many projects directed 
to the understanding of complexity leadership." further stated: 
Educational Leadership work by [the Petitioner] will include comparative 
studies that will be used to further explore the connection between complexity and 
faculty creativity in higher education: the inf1uence of school leadership styles on 
students' academic achievements: the influence of collectivist dynamics on faculty 
creativity in higher education: and the impact of complexity theory models in 
changing the role of analysis in law enforcement and national security. 
In addition, indicated that the Petitioner's journal articles and conference presentations 
demonstrate that the scope of his research has expanded beyond the U.S. education system. The 
submitted documentation shows that the proposed benefit from the Petitioner's complexity 
leadership research has national and international breadth, as the results from 
his work arc 
disseminated to others in the field through conferences and journals. Accordingly, we find that the 
prospective benefit of the Petitioner's work is national in scope, and the Director's detennination on 
this issue is withdrawn. 
C. Serving the National Interest 
It remains, then, to determine whether the Petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater 
extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. The Director 
detetmined that the Petitioner's impact and int1uence on his field did not satisfy the third prong of the 
NYSDOT national interest analysis. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-0-
The Petitioner initially submitted documentation pertammg to his exceptional ability in the 
educational leadership field. For example, the Petitioner provided his university degrees and 
transcripts, job experience letters, professional memberships, and academic awards. Academic 
records, occupational experience, membership in professional associations, and recognition for 
achievements are elements that can contribute toward a finding of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) , (B), (E), and (F) respecti vely. However, in this matter , the Petitioner must also 
demonstrate eligibility for the additional benefit of the national interest waiver. 
We note 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. Pursuant to 
section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job 
offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218, 222. Therefore, whether a given individual seeks classification as an 
alien of exceptional ability or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree , that 
individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered in his field of expertise. The national interest waiver is an additional 
benefit, separate from the classification sought, and therefore eligibility for the underl ying 
classification does not demonstrate eligibility for the additional benefit of the waiver. Without 
evidence showing that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole, we cannot conclude 
that he has demonstrated eligibility for the national interest waiver. S'ee id. at 219, n. 6. 
In addition to documentation of his published work, conference presentations , and peer review 
activities, the Petitioner submitted various reference letters discussing his work in the field. 
associate professor and graduate programs coordinator t(x the 
-
identified himself as the principal investigator for the 
1 project, ··a partnership between 
'' indicated that the 
Petitioner's contributions to the project as a graduate student "have been instrumental to the success 
of the program especially in the area of program evaluation and assessment.'' Furthermore. 
stated that "[t]he program has positively impacted over 600 elementary students in rural 
South Carolina over the last six years" and that the Petitioner's ··work in emerg ing methodologies 
including _ has 
led to contribution of complex leadership." did not explain how the Petitioner's work 
for the project has affected the field beyond the or 
provide any specific examples of how the Petitioner's modeling and analysis methodologies have 
influenced the field of complexity leadership as a whole. 
also mentioned the Petitioner's published and presented work. For example. the Petitioner 
has published an article in . and presented his work at the 
International Leadership Association Annual Conference. There is no presumption that every 
published article or conference presentation demonstrates influence on the tield as a whole: rather. 
the Petitioner must document the actual impact of his article or presentation. A substantial number 
of favorable independent citations for an article or presentation is an indicator that other researchers 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter <?fA-A-0-
are familiar with the work and have been influenced by it. A lack of citations. on the other hand. is 
generally not probative of the work's impact in the field. In this instance, there is no evidence 
showing that once disseminated through publication or presentation, the Petitioner's research has 
garnered a significant number of independent citations or that his findings have otherwise influenced 
the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner submitted additional letters of support from assistant professor 
associate professor of of educational leadership at 
educational leadership at and owner and director of 
in South Carolina. They each stated that the Petitioner is .. a 
valuable asset to this country'' and that he "has been invited to speak and present at national 
conferences." We note that many professional fields regularly hold meetings and conferences to 
present new work, discuss new findings, and to network with other professionals. Professional 
associations. educational institutions. employers, and government agencies promote and sponsor 
these meetings and conferences. Although presentation of the Petitioner's work demonstrates that he 
shared his original findings with others, there is no documentary evidence showing, for instance. 
frequent independent citation of his work, or that his findings have otherwise influenced the 
educational leadership field at a level sufficient to waive the job offer requirement. 
In addition. while each stated that the -
Petitioner's "work has private sector implications as well as national security uses .. , they did not 
offer any specific examples of how the Petitioner's complexity leadership findings are being utilized 
in the private sector or for national security purposes. also noted that the Petitioner 
worked with her "afterschool program on a Consultancy basis by providing support to at-risk 
children ," but did not explain how his work has affected practices at other educational centers or has 
otherwise influenced the complexity leadership ticld as a whole. Lastly, the aforementioned 
references indicated that the Petitioner's expertise, qualifications. credentials. and ··unique and 
original" work are not amenable to the labor certification process. The inapplicability or 
unavailability of a labor certification, however, cannot be viewed as sufficient cause for a national 
interest waiver; a petitioner still must demonstrate that he will serve the national interest to a 
substantially greater degree than do others in his field. NY.SDOT. 22 I&N Dec. at 218. n.S. 
As noted by the Director. the multiple identical statements in the aforementioned letters suggest that 
their language was not written independently. While it is acknowledged that the authors have 
provided their support for this petition, it is unclear whether the letters reflect their independent 
observations and thus an informed and unbiased opinion of the Petitioner's work. In evaluating the 
evidence, the truth is to be detennined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. See 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369. 376 (AAO 2010). In addition, USCIS may. in its discretion, 
use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Mauer o( Caron 
International, 19 I&N Dec. 791. 795 (Comm'r 1988). However. USCIS is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought. ld Based 
on the identical paragraphs in _ letters. 
USCIS may accord them less weight. Regardless, their letters do not provide specific examples of 
how the Petitioner's work has affected the field as a whole. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-0-
On appeal, describes the Petitioner's graduate work at as '·original 
and ground-breaking.'' He also states that the Petitioner '·has provided a major new thrusC regarding 
complexity theory's '"application to creativity in educational organizational networks by subjecting it 
to rigorous statistical analysis,'' but there is no documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner's 
work has been frequently cited by independent scholars, has affected practices at a substantial 
number of educational organizations. or has otherwise intluenced the field as a whole . 
In addition. indicates that the Petitioner's Ph.D. dissertation combined ··complexity 
theory and KEYS model constructs to investigate how mechanisms for intellectual productivity and 
creativity foster intellectual and disciplinary interactions among faculty members in higher 
education." He further notes that the Petitioner presented ·'a novel use of evaluation tools in 
combining the approach known as the PLS-SEM with the PLS algorithm , bootstrapping, and Q2 
predicted relevance.'' Although the Petitioner's Ph.D. work has value, any graduate research must 
be original and likely to present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the 
academic community. In order tor a university. publisher or grantor to accept any research f(lf 
graduation , publication or funding, the research must otTer new and useful information to the pool of 
knowledge. Not every scholar who performs original research that adds to the general pool of 
knowledge in the field inherently serves the national interest to an extent that is sufficient to waive 
the job otTer requirement. 
editor of. states that the Petitioner .. served 
the journal ... as a reviewer and submitted his review on a timely basis," which enabled .. an 
appropriate determination about the manuscript he reviewed." With regard to the Petitioner's services 
as a peer reviewer. it is common for a publication to ask multiple reviewers to review a manuscript 
and to offer comments. The publication's editorial stafT may accept or reject any reviewer's 
comments in determining whether to publish or reject submitted papers. Thus, peer review is routine 
in the field, and there is no evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's occasional participation in the 
widespread peer review process is evidence that he will serve the national interest to a substantially 
greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualification s. In 
addition, the Petitioner previously submitted documentation ret1ccting that he reviewed conference 
proposals t"l)r the (20 12 and 2013) and 
perlom1ed Leadership Scholarship Member Interest Group reviews tor the 
(20 13 ), but there is no indication that serving as a peer reviewer for the 
conferences demonstrates influence on the field as a whole. We note that the Petitioner provided a 
program booklet ft)r the 2012 
reflecting that more than 400 volunteers performed proposal reviews. 
The appellate submission includes a September 2015 letter from mentioning the 
Petitioner's use of mathematical models. states that the Petitioner .. has developed an 
approach which has broad applicability to multiple areas,'' but does not offer any specific examples 
of its utilization or impact on the field. In addition. indicate s that '·further elaboration 
of the theory and statistical analysis could have important insights to offer in contexts involving 
(b)(6)
Matter o.f A-A-0-
leadership across society." There is no documentary evidence showing. however, that the 
Petitioner's work has already had this effect and influenced the field as a whole. Eligibility must be 
established at the time of tiling. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.2(b)(l ), (12); Matter l?/Katighak. 14 I&N Dec. 45. 49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). expectation regarding the possible future impact of the 
Petitioner's work is not evidence ofhis eligibility at the time of filing. 
associate professor of educational leadership, 
stated: 
[The Petitioner's] field of expertise is Educational Leadership. but he brings a unique 
and highly significant set of secondary qualifications to his work. He has a 
Master's in Business Administration, and a M.Sc. in 
Political Science. He has a deep knowledge of African politics and Nigerian society 
and is able to conduct research in It is extremely rare for an 
American researcher in Educational Leadership to have a background like this. and 
this combination offers him entrance into areas of research that very few scholars 
have access to. 
at 
mentions the Petitioner's combination of mathematical-analytic, political. social science 
research, and African language skills. Any statement that a petitioner possesses useful skills or a 
'·unique background," however. relates to whether similarly trained workers are available in the 
United States and is an issue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor through the 
labor certification process. See NJ~5DOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. did not provide any 
specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected other scholars' complexity leadership 
analytical methodologies or has otherwise had an impact on the field of educational leadership as a 
whole. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific contentions 
above. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identifY specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9. 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benelits 
adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated statements are insufticient. See Visinscaia v. Beers. 4 
F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to 
uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); See also Mauer l?(Caron lnt '/. Inc .. 19 I&N 
Dec. at 795 (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion. use as advisory opinions statements ... 
submitted in evidence as expert testimony,'' but is ultimately responsible for making the tina] 
determination regarding an alien· s eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to accept or 
may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionable"). The submission of reference 
letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the petitioner's eligibility. !d.; S'ee also i'vfatter l?f 
V-K-. 24 I&N Dec. 500. n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be 
evidence as to "fact''). As the submitted reference letters did not establish that the Petitioner's work 
8 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-0-
has influenced the field as a whole, they do not demonstrate his eligibility for the national interest 
wmver. 
The Petitioner's appeal brief lists various awards that he received as a graduate student at 
but there is no documentary evidence showing that any of his academic scholarships. 
graduate assistantships , and travel awards are reflective of influence on the field of educational 
leadership as a whole. For example , the Petitioner received an Outstanding Graduate Student Award 
from the in 2012. The 
Petitioner previously submitted the award's criteria indicating that recipients must demonstrate 
·'strength in at least two ofthe following areas": 
• Academic excellence as judged by the strength of their curriculum and GPA; 
• Contributions to their profession and local or international community through paid 
or volunteer activities; 
• Research and scholarship including publications, presentations , exhibitions, and/or 
performances; or 
• Perseverance in the face of barriers to higher education. 
While particularly significant awards may serve as evidence of impact and influence on the tiel d. the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the awards he received have more than institutional or academic 
significance. Academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average. cannot alone 
satisfy the national interest threshold or assure substantial prospective national benefit. In all 
instances , a petitioner must demonstrate specific prior achievements that establish the individual's 
ability to benefit the national interest. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. 
The Petitioner's appellate submission includes an April 2013 news release from the 
Media Relations office entitled 
The news release states that ·'[t]he honor roll is the highest 
recogmtmn given by the federal government to a college or university for its dedication to 
volunteerism and service-learning .. and that joined "a large list of recipients 
from across the United States:· In addition , the news release indicate s that the universit y ··was 
recognized for such programs as football game-day. the English Department's Client-
Based Writing program and an after-school program coordinated by faculty and students 
in the School of Education." 
The Petitioner contends that the Media Relations office's news release "'reports on the national 
award for the program. and attests to the national significance of the Petitioner's work 
in the program.·· We note that the 
recognized for its dedication to volunteerism and service learning. and not the 
Petitioner for his graduate research activities. The news release. which is not indicative of 
independent journalistic coverage, does not mention the Petitioner or his modeling and analysis work 
in the field of complexity leadership. Accordingly. the news release does not show the national 
significance ofthe Petitioner's work in the complexity leadership field. 
C) 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-A-0-
In addition, the Petitioner provides printouts of webpages dated in 2015 reflecting his positions as 
membership development director and secretary for the 
. Again, eligibility must be established at the 
time of tiling. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12) ; Mafler (d'Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Accordingly . 
we cannot consider any leadership appointments after June 5, 2014, the date the petition was filed. as 
evidence to establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. Regardless , the record does not 
include evidence that the Petitioner's work for the association has influenced the field. 
The Petitioner mentions a USCIS directive to clatity the standard by which a national interest waiver 
may be granted to foreign inventors, researchers, and founders of start-up enterprises. On November 
20, 2014, Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, issued a memorandum 
to Leon Rodriguez , Director of USC IS, entitled "Policies Supporting U.S. High-Skilled Businesses and 
Workers:' 2 With respect to the national interest waiver, the memorandum states: 'This waiver is 
underutilized and there is limited guidance with respect to its invocation. I hereby direct USCIS to issue 
guidance or regulations to clarify the standard by which a national interest waiver can be granted, with 
the aim of promoting its greater use tor the benefit of the U.S. economy.'' 
The Petitioner requests approval of his petition in light of the directive to USCIS to improve its 
guidance and "to become more modern, flexible, and supportive of independent research and 
entrepreneurial efiorts.'' USCIS, however, has not yet issued any new guidance or regulations 
clarifying the national interest waiver eligibility standards in response to the Secretary's memorandum . 
and the memorandum does not itself set forth any specific guidance. A concern about underutilization 
of the national interest waiver benefit in general is not indicative that any particular decision USCIS has 
previously issued constituted an error of law or policy. The existing NYSDOT guidelines require the 
Petitioner to establish that he will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than vvould 
an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications, and he has not done so in this 
matter. See NYSDOT. 22 I&N Dec. at 217-18. With regard to following the guidelines set forth in 
NYSDOT, USCIS, by law, does not have the discretion to ignore binding precedent. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .3( c). In the present matter, the record does not show that the Petitioner's past research has 
influenced the field of complexity leadership as a whole. For example. there is no docum entary 
evidence indicating that his published and presented findings have been frequently cited by 
independent scholars , that his proposals have been widely implemented in the field, or that his work 
has otherwise affected the field as a whole. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the 
Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole or that he will otherwise serve the national 
interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum 
2 Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson , Secretary, DHS, Policies Supportinr. U.S. Hir.h-Skilled Businesses and 
Workers (Nov. 20, 2014 ), https :i/www.dhs.gov /sites/defaul t!files/publications / 14_ 1120 _memo _ business _actions. pdf. 
10 
Matter <if A-A-0-
qualifications. The Petitioner has not shown that his past record of achievement is at a level 
sufficient to waive the job offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa 
classification he seeks. 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced degree 
professional or alien of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a job otter based 
on national interest. Although a petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, he must have "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of int1uence 
on the field as a whole." NY..'JDOT. 22 I&N Dec. at 219. n.6. On the basis ofthe 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. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. 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 l?(Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013 ). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as /vlatter l?/A-A-0-, ID# 16482 (AAO Apr. 22. 2016) 
11