dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Department or llomeland Suuri
U.S.Citi/enship andinunigrationservice
AdministrativeAppealsOtfice (AAO)
20 MassachuseusAve., NW.. MS 2090
Washinvlon.DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: Office: NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE
IN RE: Petiti n
PETITION: ImmigrantPetition for Alien Worker as a Memberof the ProfessionsHolding an
AdvancedDegreeor anAlien of ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of the
ImmigrationandNationalityAct,8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelaw in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen
in accordancewiththeinstructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with afeeof $630.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseekstoreconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The employment-basedimmigrant visa petition was deniedby the Director,
NebraskaServiceCenter. The Administrative AppealsOffice (AAO) dismissedthe petitioner's
appealof that decisionon April 2, 2012. The matteris now beforethe AAO on a motionto
reconsider.The motionwill be dismissed,the previousdecisionof the AAO will be affirmed,
andthepetitionwill remaindenied.
A motion to reconsidermust statethe reasonsfor reconsiderationand be supportedby any
pertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthatthedecisionwasbasedon anincorrectapplication
of law or U.S.CitizenshipandImmigration(USCIS)policy. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3).A motionto
reconsiderconteststhecorrectnessof theoriginaldecisionbasedon thepreviousfactualrecord,
as opposedto a motion to reopenwhich seeksa new hearingbasedon new or previously
unavailableevidence.SeeMatterof Cerna,20I&N Dec.399,403(BIA 1991).
A motion to reconsidercannotbe usedto raisea legal argumentthat could havebeenraised
earlierin the proceedings.SeeMatter of Medrano,20 I&N Dec. 216,220 (BIA 1990,1991).
Rather,the"additionallegalarguments"thatmayberaisedin amotionto reconsidershouldflow
from newlaw or a de novolegaldeterminationreachedin its decisionthatcouldnot havebeen
addressedby theparty. Matterof O-S-G-,24I&N Dec.56,58(BIA 2006). Further,a motionto
reconsideris not aprocessby whicha partymaysubmit,in essence,thesamebrief presentedon
appealandseekreconsiderationby generallyallegingerrorin theprior decision.Id. Instead,the
movingpartymustspecifythefactualandlegalissuesraisedon appealthatweredecidedin error
or overlookedin the initial decisionor mustshowhow a changein law materiallyaffectsthe
prior decision. Id. at 60.
In orderto properlyfile a motion,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)requiresthat the
motion must be "[alccompaniedby a statementabout whether or not the validity of the
unfavorabledecisionhasbeenor is the subjectof anyjudicial proceedingand,if so,the court,
nature,date,andstatusor result of the proceeding." Furthermore,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(4)requiresthat "[a] motion that doesnot meet applicablerequirementsshall be
dismissed." In the presentmatter,the petitionerfailed to submita statementregardingif the
validity of thedecisionof theAAO hasbeenor is thesubjectof anyjudicial proceeding.
The petitioner seeksclassification 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 professionsholding an advanced
degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a computer software engineer specializing in
informationsystemssecurityandcybersecurity.Thepetitionerassertsthat an exemptionfrom
therequirementof ajob offer, andthusof a laborcertification,is in the nationalinterestof the
UnitedStates.Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerqualifiesfor classificationasa memberof
the professionsholding an advanceddegree,but that the petitionerhadnot establishedthat an
exemptionfrom the requirementof ajob offer would be in the nationalinterestof the United
States.TheAAO upheldthedirector'sfindingsonappeal.
Page3
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart:
(2) AliensWhoAre Membersof theProfessionsHoldingAdvancedDegreesor Aliensof
ExceptionalAbility.-
(A) In General.- Visasshallbemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswhoare
membersof the professionsholdingadvanceddegreesor their equivalentor who
becauseof their exceptionalability in the sciences,arts, or business,will
substantiallybenefit prospectivelythe nationaleconomy,cultural or educational
interests,or welfareof the UnitedStates,andwhoseservicesin the sciences,arts,
professions,orbusinessaresoughtby anemployerin theUnitedStates.
(B) Waiverof JobOffer-
(i) . . . theAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorneyGeneraldeemsit to be
in thenationalinterest,waivetherequirementsof subparagraph(A) thatan
alien'sservicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or businessbesoughtbyan
employerin theUnitedStates.
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(4)(ii)states:
Exemptionfrom job offer. Thedirectormayexemptthe requirementof ajob offer, and
thus of a labor certification,for aliensof exceptionalability in the sciences,arts, or
businessif exemptionwouldbe in thenationalinterest.To applyfor the exemption,the
petitioner must submit Form ETA-750B, Statementof Qualifications of Alien, in
duplicate,aswell asevidenceto supportthe claim that suchexemptionwould be in the
nationalinterest.
Thedirectordid notdisputethatthepetitionerqualifiesasa memberof theprofessionsholdingan
advanceddegree.Thesoleissuein contentionis whetherthepetitionerhasestablishedthata waiver
of thejob offerrequirement,andthusalaborcertification,is in thenationalinterest.
Neither the statutenor the pertinentregulationsdefine the term "national interest." Additionally,
Congressdid notprovidea specificdefinitionof "in thenationalinterest."TheCommitteeon the
Judiciarymerelynotedin its reportto the Senatethat the committeehad "focusedon national
interestby increasingthe numberandproportionof visasfor immigrantswho wouldbenefitthe
UnitedStateseconomicallyandotherwise.. . ." S.Rep.No.55,101stCong.,1stSess.,11(1989).
Supplementaryinformationto regulationsimplementingthe ImmigrationAct of 1990,published
at56Fed.Reg.60897,60900(November29,1991),states:
TheService[now U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)]believesit
appropriateto leavetheapplicationof this testasflexibleaspossible,although
clearly an alien seekingto meetthe [national interestl standardmust make a
Page4
showingsignificantly abovethat necessaryto prove the "prospectivenational
benefit" [requiredof aliens seekingto qualify as"exceptional."] The burdenwill
restwith thealiento establishthatexemptionfrom,or waiverof, thejob offer will
bein thenationalinterest.Eachcaseis to bejudgedon its ownmerits.
In re New YorkStateDept.of Transportation(NYSDOT),22 I&N Dec.215,217-18(Act. Assoc.
Comm'r1998),hassetforthseveralfactorswhichmustbeconsideredwhenevaluatingarequestfor
a nationalinterestwaiver. First,it mustbe shownthatthe alienseeksemploymentin an areaof
substantialintrinsicmerit. Id. at217. Next,thepetitionermustshowthattheproposedbenefitwill
benationalin scope.Id. Finally,thepetitionerseekingthewaivermustestablishthatthealienwill
servethe nationalinterestto a substantiallygreaterdegreethanwould an availableU.S. worker
havingthesameminimumqualifications.Id. at217-18.
It mustbenotedthat,while thenationalinterestwaiverhingesonprospectivenationalbenefit,it
clearlymustbeestablishedthatthealien'spastrecordjustifiesprojectionsof futurebenefitto the
nationalinterest.Id. at219. Thepetitioner'ssubjectiveassurancethatthealienwill, in thefuture,
servethenationalinterestcannotsufficeto establishprospectivenationalbenefit. Theinclusionof
the term "prospective"is usedhereto requirefuture contributionsby the alien,ratherthan to
facilitatetheentryof analienwith no demonstrableprior achievements,andwhosebenefitto the
nationalinterestwouldthusbeentirelyspeculative.Id.
Eligibility for the waiver must rest with the alien's own qualificationsrather than with the
positionsought. In otherwords,the AAO generallydoesnot acceptthe argumentthat a given
projectis so importantthat any alien qualifiedto work on this projectmustalsoqualify for a
nationalinterestwaiver. Id. at 218. Moreover,it cannotsufficeto statethatthe alienpossesses
usefulskills, or a "unique background." Specialor unusualknowledgeor training doesnot
inherentlymeetthe nationalinterestthreshold. The issueof whethersimilarly-trainedworkers
areavailablein theUnited Statesis an issueunderthejurisdiction of the Departmentof Labor.
Id. at221.
At issueis whetherthis petitioner'scontributionsin the field areof suchunusualsignificance
that thepetitioner meritsthe specialbenefit of a national interestwaiver, over andabovethe visa
classificationhe seeks. By seekingan extra benefit, the petitioner assumesan extra burden of
proof. A petitioner must demonstratea past history of achievementwith some degree of
influenceonthefield asa whole. Id. at219,n. 6.
TheAAO previouslyfoundthatthepetitioner'swork is in anareaof intrinsic meritandthatthe
proposedbenefitsof his work would benationalin scope. However,the AAO determinedthat
the petitionerhadfailed to establishthat he fulfilled the third eligibility factorset forth in
NYSDOT.TheAAO stated:
In this instance,the petitionerhas barely documentedhis past employment,let alone
establishedthathis pastcontributionssethim apartfrom othersin the field to anextent
Page5
that would warrantthe special,additionalbenefit of an exemptionfrom the job offer
requirementthat,by statute,normally appliesto theclassificationhe seeks.
Onmotion,thepetitionerassertsthatthestandardin NYSDOTis inappropriateandthattheAAO
erredin relying thereon. By law. the AAO doesnot havethe discretionto rejectpublished
precedent.See8 C.F.R,§ 103.3(c),which indicatesthatprecedentdecisionsarebindingon all
USCISofficers. The petitionercontendsthat requiring that he servethe nationalinterestto a
substantiallygreaterdegreethan would an availableU.S. worker having the sameminimum
qualificationsrepresentsa "more rigorousstandardof qualification" and runs contraryto the
intent of Congress. NYSDOT,however, does not representa fundamentalchangein the
underlyinglaw, but ratheran interpretationof already-existingregulations. To date,neither
Congressnor any other competentauthorityhas overturnedthe precedentdecision,and the
petitioner'sdisagreementwith that decisiondoesnot invalidateor overturn it.' In fact, one
federalcourt hasrejectedthe argumentthat the precedentdecisionviolatesthe Administrative
ProcedureAct, stating:
Plaintiff alsoarguesthattheadoptionof NY[SJDOTasaprecedentdecisionis a violation
of theAPA's noticeandcommentrequirement.See5 U.S.C.§ 553(b)& (c). However,
noticeandcommentproceedingsarenot requiredwhenanagencyadoptsanmterpretive
rule. See5 U.S.C.§ 553(b)(A). NY{S/DOTis clearly interpretivebecauseit doesnot
create new rights or duties, but rather "provides a reasonableand predictable
interpretation"of the statute.SeeMefia-Ruizv. INS, 51 F.3d 358, 364 (2d Cir.1995).
Thus,Plaintiff's claimof a violationof theAPA's noticeandcommentrequirementfails
aswell.
Talwarv.INS,No.00CIV. 1166JSM,2001WL 767018(S.D.N.Y.July9,2001).
Thepetitionerdevotesmuchof his brief to allegationsthatNYSDOTmisconstruedCongressional
intentandappliedanincorrectstandard.Ratherthandissecttheseargumentsin detail,theAAO
will observethat Congressis presumedto be awareof existing administrativeandjudicial
interpretationsof statute. SeeLorillard v. Pons,434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978). In this instance,
Congress'awarenessof NYSDOT is a matter not of presumption,but of demonstrablefact. In
1999,Congressamendedsection203(b)(2) of the Act in direct responseto the 1998precedent
decision. Congress,at that time, could have taken any number of actions to limit, modify, or
completely reversetheprecedentdecision. Instead,Congresslet thedecisionstand,apartfrom a
limited exceptionfor certainphysicians,as describedin section203(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.
BecauseCongresshasmadenofurtherstatutorychangesin thedecadesinceNYSDOT,theAAO
canconcludethatCongresshasno further objectionto theprecedentdecision.
1 Congresshas subsequentlyamendedthe Act in 1999to facilitate waivers for certain physicians. Seesection
203(b)(2)(B)tii)of theAct. This amendmentdemonstratesCongress'willingnessto modify the nationalinterestwaiver
statutein responsetoNYSDOT;thenarrowfocusof theamendmentimplies(if only by omission)thatCongress,thusfar.
hasseennoneedto modifythestatutefurtherin responseto theprecedentdecision.
Page6
The petitionercommentson previousunpublisheddecisionsin which USCIS "had deniedan
applicationfor anNIW by a Statisticianbut hadapprovedtheNIW applicationof a Statisticianwith
experiencein DataMining applicableto Genetics,FraudDetectionandIntrusionPreventionciting
the particularalignmentof the areaof specializationwith thenationalinterest." The petitioner,
however,failedto submitcopiesof theseunpublisheddecisionsin theclassificationsought. Going
onrecordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingthe
burdenof proof in theseproceedings.Matter of Soffici,22 I&N Dec. 158,165(Comm'r 1998)
(citing Matter of TreasureCraft of California, 14I&N Dec. 190(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Instead,
thepetitionersubmitsacopyof anunpublishedJune21,2005AAO decisionin theclassification
soughtpertainingto ananalyticalchemistryresearcherin whichtheAAO remandedthematterto
the directorfor considerationof the alien'swork duringtheperiodof his Ph.D.studiesandfor
considerationof thecitationhistoryof the alien'spublishedwork. Thepetitionerhasfurnished
no evidenceto establishthat the facts of the instant petition are analogousto those in the
aforementionedunpublisheddecisions. Further,while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c)providesthat AAO
precedentdecisionsare binding on all USCIS employeesin the administrationof the Act,
unpublisheddecisionsarenotsimilarlybinding.
Thepetitionerpointsto Kazarianv. USCIS,580F.3d 1030(9'hCir. 2009)aff'd in part 596F.3d
1115(9th Cir. 2010)in which the court statedthat the AAO had unilaterally imposednovel
substantiveor evidentiaryrequirementsbeyondthoseset forth in the regulationsat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). The AAO's appellatedecisionin the present
matter,however,did not unilaterallyimposeany novel substantiveor evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthose set forth in the regulations. Rather,the AAO relied on relevant,published,
standingprecedentby following theguidelinessetforth in NYSDOT.TheAAO agreeswith the
petitionerthatthestandardof proofis preponderanceof theevidence.The"preponderanceof the
evidence"standard,however,doesnotrelievethepetitionerfrom satisfyingtheeligibility factors
setforth in NYSDOT.In thepresentmatter,thedocumentationsubmittedby thepetitionerfailsto
demonstrateby a preponderanceof the evidencethat he will servethe nationalinterestto a
substantiallygreaterdegreethan would an availableU.S. worker having the sameminimum
qualifications.
The petitioner assertsthat he has previous experiencein the areasof "Information Systems
Security/Cybersecurity"thatwere"specificallymentionedby thePresidentof theUnitedStatesof
Americain anexecutiveorderasbeingcriticalto thenationalinterest."As previouslynotedin the
AAO's appellatedecision,it is thepositionof USCISto grantnationalinterestwaiverson a case-
by-casebasis,ratherthanto establishblanketwaiversfor entirefieldsof specialization.NYSDOT,
22 I&N Dec. at 217. The petitionersubmitsa February23, 2000job offer letterfrom VPNet
Technologies,Inc. offeringhim the positionof SeniorCustomerSupportEngineer,but the letter
doesnot identifythepetitioner'spastwork experienceor the specifictechnologicaladvancements
madeby thepetitionerin theareasof informationsystemssecurityor cybersecurity.Thepetitioner
alsolistssevenrolesthatheperformeda , but
he failed to submit letters from these companiesdetailing his work experienceand past
contributionsin the field. The regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1)requiresthat evidenceof
experience"shall" consistof lettersfrom employers.Thereis nodocumentaryevidenceshowing
Page7
that the petitioner'swork to developsecuritysoftwareandrelatedproductssetshim apartfrom
othersin theinformationsystemssecurityandcybersecurityfields. As previouslydiscussed,going
on recordwithoutsupportingdocumentaryevidenceis not sufficientfor purposesof meetingthe
burdenof proofin theseproceedings.Matterof Soffici,22 I&N Dec.at 158. Thedocumentation
andargumentspresentedon motionfail to demonstratea pasthistory of achievementwith some
degreeof influenceonthefield asa whole. Id. at219,n.6.
The AAO's appellatedecision also noted an additional ground for denial. Although the
petitionersubmittedtwo copiesof Form ETA-750B with his initial petition, the duplicateshe
submittedwere photocopiesdated March 18, 2005. The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(k)(4)(ii) states,in pertinentpart, "[t]o apply for the [nationalinterest]exemptionthe
petitionermust submitForm ETA-750B, Statementof Qualificationsof Alien, in duplicate."
Amongotherthings,the Form ETA-750Blists an alien's employmentover the last five years
andanydegreesor certificatesreceived.TheFormETA-750Bfrom March2005did not provide
information about the petitioner from June 2005 to June 2010. The AAO found that the
petitioner's resubmissionof the outdatedphotocopieswas insufficient to satisfy the central
purposeof the form. TheAAO stated: "The petitionerdid not executethis requireddocument
for the petition, andthereforethe petitionerhasnot properlyappliedfor the national interest
waiver." The petitioner stateson motion that he has refrained from working since the
terminationof his employmentwith CaymasSytems,Inc. in 2006until filing this petition on
June28, 2010. The petitioner'slack of employmentfrom 2006- 2010, however,doesnot
excusehis failureto submitanupdated,fully executedFormETA-750B,in duplicate,atthetime
of filing asrequiredby theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(4)(ii).
In this matter,thepetitionerhasfailedto supporthis motionwith anypersuasivelegalargument,
precedentdecisions,or othercomparableevidenceto establishthattheAAO's appellatedecision
was basedon an incorrectapplicationof law or USCIS policy. Accordingly, the motion to
reconsiderwill bedismissed.
As is clearfrom aplainreadingof thestatute,it wasnot theintentof Congressthateveryalienof
exceptionalability shouldbeexemptfromtherequirementof ajob offerbasedon nationalinterest.
Likewise,it doesnotappearto havebeentheintentof Congressto grantnationalinterestwaiverson
thebasisof theoverallimportanceof agivenoccupation,ratherthanon themeritsof theindividual
alien. Onthebasisof theevidencesubmitted,thepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatawaiverof the
requirementof an approvedalienemploymentcertificationwill be in the nationalinterestof the
UnitedStates.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291
of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Themotionto reconsideris dismissed,thedecisionof theAAO datedApril 2,
2012is affirmed,andthepetitionremainsdenied.