dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: 
JUN 0 5 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Imm igration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION RECEIPT#: 
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: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider 
our decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103. 5. Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) within 33 days of 
the date of this decision. The Form 1-2908 web page (www .uscis.gov /i-290b) contains the latest 
information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions 
directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
�e�:n":;trative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition 
for Alien Worker (Form I-140). The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 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. According to 
Part 6 of the Form I-140, the petitioner seeks employment as an engineer to work on "Development of 
Linguistic Mobile Applications." 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. 
The petitioner submits additional evidence on appeal. 
I. Law 
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. 
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, lOl st Cong., 1st Sess., II (1989 ). 
In reNew York State Dep 't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-1 8 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDECBION 
Page 3 
interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the beneficiary seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. Jd at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. Jd Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the beneficiary will 
serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having 
the same minimum qualifications. Jd at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the beneficiary's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. Jd. at 
219. The petitioner's assurance that the beneficiary 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 beneficiary, rather than to facilitate the entry of a beneficiary with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. Jd 
II. Facts and Analysis 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140 on November 14, 2013, indicating that his proposed work as an 
engineer will involve developing "Linguistic Mobile Applications ." The petitioner submitted several 
letters from past employers attesting to his work experience as a Russian language translator and 
interpreter, and as a computer systems analyst and programm er analyst. None of the letters indicated 
that the petitioner's past employment had involved the development of linguistic mobile applications. 
A March 15, 2011, letter from Illinois, stated that the petitioner was 
employed as a full-time senior programm er analyst from October 2008 to August 2009, during which 
time his duties were to "Plan, Design, Develop, Test and Document Applications Software." However, 
the letter did not identify the nature of the applications software on which the petitioner had worked, or 
describe what effect, if any, they had on the field. Other letters indicated that the petitioner's 
employment as a translator and interpreter included translating technical and scientific subject matter 
from Russian to English. 
Accompanying the Form I-140, the petitioner also submitted evidence that he earned a Bachelor's and a 
Master's degree in computer engineering from a university in Ukraine in 1999 and 2001, respectively, 
and that he was granted F-1 student status in the United States in 2006 to pursue a Ph.D. in Computer 
Science from 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on May 30, 2014, requesting additional evidence to 
demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed employment would be national in scope and to establish 
that the petitioner had a history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field. 
In a statement responding to the RFE, the petitioner stated, "There is a lot more to improve on 
Translations and Technologies using computer languages as a base for human language automation on a 
variety of handy mobile devices." As evidence of the national scope of his proposed work, the 
petitioner submitted an excerpt from the website of the National Virtual Translation Center (NVTC), an 
organization that provides "translations of foreign intelligence for U.S. agencies." The excerpt 
described the importance of the role that NVTC's language specialists play in the U.S. intelligence 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
community. Under the heading of "Translation: NATIONAL SCOPE," the petitioner also submitted 
marketing and promotional images related to companies offering translation services, and a Department 
of Defense slide presentation regarding the government's need for language technology. The petitioner 
did not claim or submit evidence establishing that he has any past or present connection with NVTC, 
the Department of Defense, or any translation services company. 
As evidence relating to his past record of achievement, the petitioner submitted copies of photographs, 
identified as depicting the petitioner "[ w ]ith Russian Specialists, Experts & Professors (in the fields of 
Science, Technology & Engineering)," and in various locations to which he traveled in his capacity as a 
translator. The petitioner also submitted numerous other advertising images, graphics, and website 
excerpts relating to language and translation. In his statement responding to the RFE, the petitioner 
indicated that these images are intended to provide "an overview of Translation as a Profession in 
various topics." The images were grouped by category, including such headings as ''National Economy 
Translations," ''National Space Program Translations," "Scientific Research Translations," "Future of 
Translation," and many others. 
In addition, in response to the RFE, the petitioner submitted notes and documentation relating to a 
dispute with a former employer, I that filed a Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, on his behalf and later withdrew the petition. Finally, the petitioner submitted a March 17, 
2010, job offer letter from Illinois, offering the petitioner a "Senior 
Application Developer" position. The letter did not specify the nature of the projects that the petitioner 
would work on, nor did the petitioner submit evidence that he was ever in fact employed by 
LLC. 
The director denied the Form I-140 on September 30, 2014, finding that the petitioner had established 
the substantial intrinsic merit of his area of proposed employment under the first prong of NYSDOT, but 
that he had not established that the proposed benefits would be national in scope, or that the petitioner 
would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker 
having the same minimum qualifications under the second and third prongs, respectively. The director 
found that the submitted evidence did not address what influence, if any, the petitioner's past 
achievements had on the field of linguistic mobile applications. 
The petitioner submits a statement on appeal. In addition, the petitioner submits a Form ETA 750 Part 
B, Statement of Qualifications of Alien; copies of the petitioner's online records from _ 
, dated February 23, 2011, indicating acceptance of transfer credits towards a Ph.D. in 
Information Technology; a November 19, 2010, job offer email from , in 
1 Illinois; copies of online job postings from various government agencies and other 
organizations seeking Russian linguists and computational linguists; and copies of quotes that 
emphasize the value of deeds over words. 
The petitioner states on appeal that the director erred in finding that he had not established the national 
scope of the benefits ofhis proposed work. The petitioner states: 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
As evidence shows the national significance would be: Serving Government needs, 
Emergency needs of Citizens locally/nationally/internationally in the modem world, 
nuclear and space ages as a whole. Promoting International trade with the largest 
natural resource giant would have national significance if properly utilized/promoted as 
per needs. 
The petitioner has submitted evidence generally relating to the use of, and need for, translation servic es 
and technology in a wide variety of contexts, including those named on appeal. However, the petitioner 
has not provided information or evidence about the linguistic mobile applications he proposes to 
develop, such as what functions they would offer, which languages they would translate, or how they 
would improve on existing mobile translation applications. While government entities, trade 
organizations, private citizens, and others may rely on translation services and technologies, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence to explain how his proposed mobile applications in particular 
would meet those needs. Without additional evidence about the products that the petitioner intends to 
develop, we cannot determine that the benefits of their development would be national in scope. 
Accordingly, we agree with the director's finding that the petitioner has not met the second prong of 
NYSDOT. 
With regard to the third prong of NYSDOT, the petitioner contends on appeal that he would serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same 
minimum qualifications: 
The level that would set me apart from engineers in the field would be [my] capability 
to: 
• 
Program Linguistic Software addressing all the software needs of the Language 
Industry 
• 
PhD Qualifications Approach (research & development) and Quality Proving 
Standards (Analytical decisions with evidences) 
• 
Russian language experience for 20 years (1994-2014) 
• 
Intercontinental adaptation, service to diverse needs of society with wide range 
of experiences 
• Proven services to Specialists, Scientists, Professors & Industry 
Managers/Directors 
• Earning Respect and admiration are some of the important keys to be Successful 
in the industry 
The evidence indicates that the petitioner has previous employment experience as a Russian translator 
and interpreter and as a software developer, and that the petitioner's educational background is relevant 
to his proposed endeavor. However, none of the evidence regarding the petitioner's past employment 
or education establishes that he has experience developing linguistic software, nor does. the submitted 
evidence establish the significance of his achievements as a linguist or a software developer. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that he has a past record of achievement in the field that 
justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. See NYSDOT at 219. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
As an alternative argument on appeal, the petitioner states that it is unrealistic and unfair to expect him 
to be able to show influence on the field when he has been unable to obtain the immigration status and 
employment authorization he would need to work in the field. The petitioner states that the actions of 
and U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services (USCIS) have hindered his educational 
and professional career "by not fixing the errors on-time nor resolving them appropriately." The 
petitioner therefore requests that USCIS "waive me the requirements not submitted and grant me the 
Permanent Residency." 
The petitioner did not specifically identify the asserted errors made by USCIS in previous proceedings. 
Regardless, in visa petition proceedings, the burden is on the petitioner to establish eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). The petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence that the beneficiary is fully 
qualified for the benefit sought. Matter of Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter of 
E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989); Matter ofSoo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 1965). In 
this instance, the relevant law and regulations provide that the job offer and labor certification 
requirements m<,iy be waived only when doing so would be in the national interest. The AAO does not 
have authority under the Act or the regulations to make any exception to this requirement. 
III. Conclusion 
The petitioner has not established that the benefits of his proposed work would be national in scope, nor 
has he 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. at 
217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the field of 
endeavor." Id at 218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the individual 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. 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. 
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, at 128. Here, the petitioner 
has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.