dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computational Fluid Dynamics

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office ofAdministrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
FILE: Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: MAR 1 5 2010 
LIN 08 063 50165 
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. 5 1 1 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. 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 $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
U 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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. 8 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) scientist. 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a copy of his newly-published book, a witness letter, and arguments 
from counsel. 
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 - 
(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, 10 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
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 Trunsportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Cornrnr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, 
it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must 
be shown 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 U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established 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 inclusion of the term "prospective" is used 
here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. 
We also note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 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 offerllabor 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 petition on December 19, 2007. In a statement accompanying the initial filing 
of the petition, counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] has been working at since November of 
2005. He has contributed to several of the Company's pro-jects, and has mastered one - - -- 
critical technology, namely the immersed boundary method. Also, [the petitioner] has 
worked on a project that was provided by the U.S. government. He had generated the 
mesh for the combustor during the initial part of the project - this is regarded as one of 
the major bottlenecks in any real-life, complicated Computational Fluid Dynamics 
(CFD) project. [The petitioner] is on the threshold of directly contributing to the U.S. 
government with his continuing research. However, many . . . government projects 
require the individual to possess at least a green card. It would be beneficial for the U.S. 
government if [the petitioner] is given a green card so that he can further improve the 
U.S. economy as well as work further on behalf of U.S. governmental agencies. 
. . . A U.S. worker would not have the knowledge and the experience of [the petitioner]. 
He has formulated his own theory as part of his fundamental research studies and it is a 
niche and high-technology area of Mechanical Engineering. 
[The petitioner] possesses expertise that is extremely difficult to obtain in his field 
anywhere in the world. . . . U.S. government agencies are interested in hiring someone 
that already possesses a green card, not someone to file the green card for. 
Several witness letters accompanied the petition. a lead software developer at 
stated: 
I have known [the petitioner] professionally from the time he worked in = 
Between 1997 and 1999 I worked closely with him in a number of time-critical projects 
that spanned across a wide range of engineering applications. . . . 
Subsequent to his departure from [the petitioner] . . . has made critical 
contributions to the field of particle dispersion by formulating novel mathematical 
techniques that complemented, and in many ways, enhanced conventional particle 
tracking methods. 
for engineering solutions at stated that the 
petitioner "is an essential and irreplaceable member of our team" who "has already mastered one of ow 
critical technologies" and "also contributed immensely to writing proposals successfully for our 
company." 
I have been well aware of [the petitioner's] achievements in both fundamental and 
applied research in atmospheric sciences during his stint as a doctoral student in our 
department. He made seminal contributions to turbulence modeling theory which is a 
notoriously difficult subject. Specifically, he developed the state-of-the-art in 
Lagrangian Stochastic Models for atmospheric dispersion of pollutants. He also 
demonstrated the practical application to his theory in environmental engineering by 
applying it to an airport region in an urban area. This work has been a big success that 
has gained him a lot of recognition and has established him as an expert in his field. . . . 
He was also recently invited by Los Angeles Airport to give a talk on his work on 
pollutant dispersion in airports. . . . 
Currently, [the petitioner] is working in 1, a small 
computational fluid dynamics company that does industrial projects for both the - ~ 
and the industry. As the president of this company, I am seeing him taking 
a leadership role in the practical development of a very new and powerful technique 
known as the immersed boundary method. He is very quickly becoming an expert in the 
industrial application of this category of methods. Our company has a very strong 
collaboration with the leading Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) company in the 
World, - - we are currently developing and implementing this 
technology in their flagship code, Fluent[,] that is currently the most widely used 
commercial CFD code in the World. I envision that this method is going to be adopted 
as the method of choice by the industrial CFD community worldwide and [the 
petitioner] is playing a very important role in making this happen. . . . 
The sooner he gets permanent residence status, the better it is for the country. . . . The 
National Interest Waiver is the best option available to him as it can make him a 
permanent resident within a very short time. 
With regard to the last sentence quoted above, the national interest waiver does not expedite the 
adjustment of status of an alien, such as the petitioner, from a country with oversubscribed second- 
preference employment-based immigrant visa numbers. While the waiver would allow the petitioner to 
bypass the labor certification process, it would have no effect on the cutoff date for visa number 
availability in the classification sought, and the waiver neither expedites nor assures the approval of an 
adjustment application. Furthermore, 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(d) sets the priority date when the labor 
certification application is accepted for processing, which offsets the processing time of that application. 
Therefore, the national interest waiver would not "make [the petitioner] a permanent resident within a 
very short time" compared to the standard job offerllabor certification process. 
I was [the petitioner's] PhD advisor while I was on the faculty at Stanford University. 
[The petitioner] completed his thesis on the subject of Lagrangian dispersion modeling 
in stratified turbulent flow. His work advanced the state of the art in this subject through 
the innovative development of a mathematical method to derive stochastic, Lagrangian 
model equations that were consistent with Eulerian statistics. This is outstanding and 
original research, which demonstrates a high degree of scientific capability. 
an assistant professor at Stanford and "one of the partners" in Cascade Technology, 
credited the petitioner with "original and lasting contributions to Lagrangian stochastic techniques for 
modeling turbulent dispersion of pollutants in the atmosphere." 
-. 
[the petitioner] is currently working in," stated that the beneficiary is "becoming an expert on . . . the 
immersed boundary (IB) method. It is widely believed that the entire industrial CFD modeling 
community worldwide is going to follow this approach." 
The witnesses all have demonstrable ties to the beneficiary, mostly through Cascade Technology andlor 
Stanford University. Their statements do not reflect the impact of the petitioner's work outside of his 
collaborators and those with a demonstrated financial interest in his work. 
The petitioner submitted copies of his doctoral dissertation, published journal articles and other 
materials. These materials establish the existence, but not the impact, of the petitioner's scholarly work. 
We note the petitioner's involvement in a presentation at Los Angeles International Airport, but this 
does not establish significant use of the petitioner's work outside of southern California where he 
studied and where he now works. 
On January 15, 2009, the director requested "additional documentary evidence" to show the petitioner's 
"degree of influence on [his] field" "as of the petition priority date." The director stated that such 
evidence "may include, for example, copies of published articles that cite or otherwise recognize [the 
petitioner's] research achievements." 
In response, counsel observed that the beneficiary's doctoral thesis, with some revisions, "is in the 
process of being printed as a book." The petitioner submitted a copy of the manuscript, but the book 
apparently had not been published yet. The petitioner did not establish that this work had already 
influenced the field even before its publication. Once again, its very existence is not evidence of impact 
or influence on the field. 
The petitioner submitted copies of five published articles that contain citations of the beneficiary's work. 
One of the articles is by the petitioner, citing his own prior work, and another Stanford University 
researcher wrote one of the other articles. Two of the remaining three articles appeared after the 
petition's filing date, leaving one independent citation published before the petition's 2007 filing date. 
The evidence submitted does not indicate that others have frequently cited the petitioner's work before 
(or after) the filing date. 
The director denied the petition on April 22, 2009, stating that the petitioner's minimal publication 
record and citation history fail to distinguish him from others working in his field. The director also 
noted that all the submitted letters were from witnesses with direct ties to the petitioner. On appeal, 
counsel states: 
The quality of research that is required to get the degree from Stanford University is of 
exceptionally high standard and is far higher than most of the schools in the country in 
this field. [The petitioner's] OMTI research is on turbulence modeling theory, which is 
notoriously difficult and only a few people even venture to work on the theoretical side 
Page 7 
of turbulence. The success that [the petitioner] has achieved in his chosen topic firmly 
establishes his superiority over many of his peers in the turbulence community. 
Although important, the number of publications on its own is not a complete measure of 
the impact or usefulness of a scientist's research. The quality of the journals in which 
the work is published is much more important. 
The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 
n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). Eligibility for the national interest waiver rests first and foremost 
on the merits of the individual alien. We will not approve the waiver based on the reputation of the 
university the beneficiary attended, the claimed difficulty of his chosen specialty, or the reputation of a 
journal that published his work. It is important to remember that universities and journals earn their 
reputation from the quality of work they produce. Counsel effectively argues the opposite, claiming 
that anyone who graduates fiom Stanford and publishes in Physics of Fluids and the Atmospheric 
Environment is presumptively a superior researcher on the basis of those credentials. 
Counsel acknowledges the importance of citations, but asserts "it does take time for the work to get 
noticed." An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit 
at the time of filing the application or petition. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l). Therefore, subsequent events 
cannot cause a previously ineligible alien to become eligible after the filing date. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). We cannot and will not find that the petitioner 
was already eligible in 2007 based on speculation that his work will eventually "get noticed" at some 
unspecified future point in time. Counsel observes that the petitioner's "research is starting to get 
cited," and witnesses have stated that the beneficiary is "becoming an expert" in his specialty. These 
assertions indicate that the petitioner filed the petition prematurely. The waiver is for aliens who 
have had an impact, not those who hope to have one. 
A new letter from follows the same vein as counsel's arguments. repeats the 
claim that a doctorate from Stanford requires "exceptionally high quality research," notes "the difficulty 
of the subject" that the beneficiary has chosen to pursue, and states that it is rare for a doctoral thesis to 
be published in book form. states that, with the publication of the book, the petitioner's 
"work will be made easily accessible worldwide, and many can use the results of [the petitioner's] 
research." Availability does not equal influence, and we repeat that we will not approve a waiver based 
on the assertion that the beneficiary studied a difficult subject at a prestigious university and later 
published his work. 
The petitioner has shown that his teachers, collaborators and employers are impressed with the 
quality of his work, and confident in his ability to make significant contributions to his field. The 
record, however, does not show that the petitioner's work was already seen as important or 
influential as of the petition's filing date. The petition, rather, rests on a combination of conjecture 
and appeals to the beneficiary's association with prestigious institutions. These factors cannot 
suffice to establish eligibility for the waiver. We agree with the director's decision to deny the 
petition. 
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 of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This decision is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by a labor certification issued by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting 
evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.