dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Environmental Science

Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
MATTER OF N-R- DATE: AUG. 26, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an environmental science researcher, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 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 
section 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, Nebraska 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. In his appeal, the Petitioner argues 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) 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 
Matter ofN-R-
who because of their exceptional ability in the s~iences, 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) National interest waiver. ... the Attorney General1 may, when the Attorney 
General deem's 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, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Matter of New York State Department of 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 assurance 
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 projections of future benefit to the 
national interest by establishing a history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of 
influence on the field as a whole. !d. at 219, n.6. 
II. ANALYSIS 
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 of 
1 Pursuant to section 1517 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ("HSA"), Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2311 
(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2012)), any reference to the Attorney General in a provision ofthe Act describing functions 
that were transferred from the Attorney General or other Department of Justice official to the Department of Homeland 
Security by the HSA "shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary" of Homeland Security. See also 6 U.S.C. § 542 note 
(2012); 8 U.S.C. § 1551 note (2012). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-R-
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. The Petitioner has 
established that his work in the field of environmental science and bio-food security is in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit and that the proposed benefits of his research would be national in scope. 
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. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner indicated that he was completing his Ph.D. at 
in Australia, focused on bio-food security. The Petitioner explained that his research 
pertains to food security including environmental, agricultural, and development issues that are closely 
interrelated and that his work is in the national interest of the United States. The Director determined 
that the Petitioner's impact and influence on his field did not satisfy the third prong of the NYSDOT 
national interest analysis. 
In addition to documentation of his published and presented work, research projects and their 
funding, and professional memberships, the Petitioner submitted various reference letters discussing 
his work in the field. With respect to the Petitioner's research concerning surface and subsurface 
water resources on the campus, 
associate dean and professor of natural and applied science at the noted that the Petitioner's 
thesis work involving water resources was used to educate and train both undergraduate and 
graduate students in water resource investigation techniques. explained that the 
Petitioner's work, "successfully bridges the gap between data collection and research and its 
application to curriculum enrichment." further stated that the Petitioner has "made 
significant contributions in the related areas of water quality and waste management," and he 
believes that "[the Petitioner] will be able to make further significant contributions to such efforts." 
did not elaborate on how the Petitioner's research specifically contributed to water 
resource investigation techniques. 
Although the Petitioner's environmental research has value, any research must be original and likely 
to present some benefit if it is to receive funding and attention from the scientific community. In 
order for a university, publisher, or grantor to accept any research for graduation, publication or 
funding, the research must offer new and useful information to the pool of knowledge. 
did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has affected water resource practices 
in various communities, what specific techniques were developed by the Petitioner, or how his work 
has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
Similarly, industrial recycling specialist, at the affirmed that the 
Petitioner was actively involved in his research related to beneficial reuse opportunities for high 
volume industrial byproducts such as paper mill sludge, foundry sand, and utility ash. 
further mentioned that the Petitioner "demonstrated strong technical and computer skills, as well as 
the ability to communicate with engineering and technical personnel at many companies in 
Wisconsin." also wrote that "a technical paper on the results of this project was presented 
at an international conference held in " Similarly, 
professor, natural and applied sciences, commented: 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofN-R-
[The Petitioner] also gained significant knowledge in the field of solid waste 
management and recycling while working for two years in the 
located on our 
campus. While there he helped develop strategies for the beneficial reuse of high 
volume industrial by-products generated in Wisconsin. He also used Geographic 
Information Systems (GIS) as a tool in analyzing solid waste management 
infrastructures. This work resulted in a joint paper with which was 
presented at an international conference in m 1998. 
While and both stated that the Petitioner's work was "presented" at an 
international conference in they did not indicate how the Petitioner's work specifically 
affected any communities' solid waste management infrastructures or how it has otherwise advanced 
the field of waste management as a whole. In addition, the Petitioner did not submit any corroborating 
documentation, apart from the invitation to present his research, explaining the "significant impact" of 
the Petitioner's work. There is no presumption that every published article or conference presentation 
demonstrates influence on the field as a whole; rather, the Petitioner must document the actual 
impact of his article or presentation. In this instance, there is no evidence showing that once 
disseminated through publication or presentation, the Petitioner's work related to solid waste 
management or subsurface water garnered a significant number of independent citations or that his 
findings have otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
city of department of city development, noted that, in 1995, the 
Petitioner was a lead project assistant for the which served 
approximately 50 inner city young 
people ages 14-22. indicated that the Petitioner 
"assisted in all program elements, 
including youth supervision, the development of work plans and 
the design of projects, and general environmental education." He further stated: 
[The Petitioner] has developed a unique and valuable set of skills for participating in 
both scientific and commercial efforts that incorporate environmental studies, having 
combined GIS and other computer expertise, understanding of and hands-on 
familiarity with field work, and understanding of the general economic and specific 
markets associated with the recycling and sale of industrial byproducts, and relevant 
U.S. and State of Wisconsin administrative and regulatory codes. 
does not explain how the Petitioner's work with this program resulted in an impact on 
the field beyond the summer internship described. A statement that a petitioner possesses useful 
skills or experience relates to whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States 
and falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification 
process. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
The record also contains copies of invitations from various conference orgamzers. 
professor and acting director of the 
4 
at 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-R-
invited the Petitioner to be a presenter at the Symposium on the 
m 2008; colloquium 
organizer of the in South Korea, in 
2007, invited the Petitioner to present his research at the conference; and the 
invited the Petitioner to present his research at the 2014 
meeting at 
senior lecturer at described the 
Petitioner's research related to social inquiry regarding food security, and examining sustainability and 
the resilience of food systems through reconnecting culture farming and environment. 
commented that the Petitioner "brings a solid transdisciplinary context of research grounded in 
-contextual learning to his research study." She goes on to write that he has contributed internationally 
through presentation of his research in international forums. 
head of the office in Nepal, 
submitted a letter explaining that "as a key resource person in many internal and international 
deliberations, especially in relation to the environment, food security, and international aid 
development, [the Petitioner] has gained inter-subjective perspectives." He further stated that the 
Petitioner's "core expertise is a mix of social and natural science methodologies that has a definitive 
contribution to policy development and embody social and natural science 'Praxis' contextualized and 
reflective of the phenomenon." also described several seminars and conferences in which 
the Petitioner 
presented research, including the m 
Pakistan; a seminar entitled jointly 
sponsored by the and the 
Ill China; and several conferences in Nepal that were sponsored by 
associate professor, 
served on the former board of trustees of the 
stated that she 
a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Nepal when [the 
Petitioner] was the executive chairperson of the organization. stated that, under the 
Petitioner's leadership, the organization received institutional and financial support from several 
national and international organizations such as the 
and the The Petitioner did 
not provide any evidence of this funding to substantiate 
no documentation indicating that the Petitioner's work for the 
whole. 
statements. Regardless, there is 
has influenced the field as a 
Included with the response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), 
second letter that stated: 
provided a 
After leaving [the Petit'ioner] spent considerable time as the Executive 
Chairperson of the 
in Nepal. In this position, [the Petitioner] developed forums and mechanisms 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-R-
for coordination and public discussion with groups on policy and other relevant 
environmental topics. He also identified local, regional and global opportunities and 
partners and contributed to the development of knowledge on sustainability. It should 
be noted that [the Petitioner] also continued to publish articles and proceedings, while 
also making a number of technical presentations. 
While not identifying the articles, proceedings or technical presentations that he was referring to, 
explained that the Petitioner is "collaborating with on blending 
Grounded Theory and Systems Thinking tools," which "presents a novel contribution in addressing 
sustainability and development in both developed and developing countries." 
professor emeritus, also submitted a letter in support of this petiti'on. stated that, 
"[the Petitioner's] methodology that uniquely blends Grounded Theory and Systems Dynamics is 
very promising and offers great potential for generating relevant insights about real world problems 
and in fact very enduring for US while we grapple with environmental and social issues in a local 
and national level." expectation regarding the possible future impact of the Petitioner's 
work, however, is not evidence of his eligibility at the time of filing. Possible future impact is not 
sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has a past history of demonstrable achievement that has 
impacted the field. Furthermore, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing and must 
continue to be eligible for the benefit through adjudication. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(I). A petition may 
not be approved at a future date after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set 
offacts. Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Comm'r 1971). 
Finally, assistant professor, m Nepal; 
assistant professor of law at in Nepal; and, associate 
professor department of engineering science and engmeenng, in Nepal, 
submitted letters indicating that the book, which was 
edited by the Petitioner, is currently used as a required text book for their respective graduate 
courses. reader at in Nepal, also provided a 
letter stating that the book is "being widely cited by my master thesis student and myself." As the 
Petitioner was the editor of this text, and not the author, there is no indication that his work 
influenced the field of water resources security and sustainability at a level sufficient to waive the 
job offer requirement. 
Overall, the Petitioner ~ubmitted letters of varying probative value. ·We have addressed the specific 
contentions above. Generalized conclusory statements that do not identity specific contributions or 
their impact in the field have little probative value. See 1.756, 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 
benefits adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated statements are insufficient. 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 Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N 
Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (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 final 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 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ojN-R-
submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
users may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the petitioner's 
eligibility. !d. See also Matter of 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 has influenced the field as a whole, they do not 
demonstrate his eligibility for the national interest waiver. The individuals who provided letters of 
support are limited to collaborators and advisors of the Petitioner, and their statements do not reflect 
the Petitioner's influence beyond his immediate colleagues. 
The Petitioner also submitted copies of his master's thesis and two conference presentations. While 
the Petitioner stated that he submitted a copy of the report, it is not contained in the 
record. The Petitioner has not established that his research has been independently cited or 
presented other evidence indicative of its impact on the field as a whole. A substantial number of 
favorable independent citations for an article is one indicator that other researchers are familiar with 
the work and have been influenced by it. The Petitioner must submit documentary evidence 
showing that his work has affected water management or food security protocols, or has otherwise 
influenced the field as a whole. 
With respect to the documentation reflecting that the Petitioner has presented his findings at various 
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, healthcare organizations, 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 field of environmental science at a level sufficient to waive the job offer requirement. 
The Petitioner must also submit evidence that the research, once disseminated, impacted the field 
beyond a general contribution to the state of knowledge. 
On appeal, the Petitioner lists his various research accomplishments, but as indicated above, 
presented little documentary evidence showing that his work has affected the field of environmental 
science as a whole and many of the recommenders' statements have not been corroborated by 
evidence in the record. For example, the appellate submission includes a statement that the 
Petitioner 
[ w ]orked in a policy solicitation and research implication internationally with several 
former 
and 
Administrator and a 
of Taiwan. 
for 
Assistant 
and 
The Petitioner, however, did not submit any corroborating documentation from the aforementioned 
organizations reflecting the new policy guidelines or indicating that the organizations noted 
(b)(6)
Matter of N-R-
implemented the Petitioner's work. USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated statements. See 1756, 
Inc., 745 F.Supp .. at 15. 
The appellate submission also contends that the Petitioner's research has been used by the 
universities teachers, 
local county and municipal offices and national policy forums, and that it will be "highly valuable" 
to the However, the Petitioner has 
not explained how these agencies or governmental entities have used his work or how will 
benefit from the Petitioner's research. General statements regarding the importance of a given field 
of endeavor, or the urgency of an issue facing the United States, cannot by themselves establish that 
an individual benefits the national interest by virtue of engaging in the field. !d. at 217. Such 
information addresses only the "substantial intrinsic merit" prong of NYSDOT s national interest test. 
We do not dispute the importance of having skilled environmental scientists working in our nation's 
government and non-government institutions. At issue in this matter, however, is whether the 
Petitioner's individual contributions in the field are of such significance that he merits the special 
benefit of a national interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that his unique skills, 
knowledge, and environmental science and food security expertise 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. !d. at 218, 
n.5. 
The existing NYSDOT guidelines require the Petitioner to establish that he will serve the national 
interest to a substantially greater degree than would 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. § l03.3(c). 
In the present matter, the record does not show that the Petitioner's past research has influenced the 
field of environmental science or food security as a whole. For example, there is no documentary 
evidence indicating that his published and presented findings 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 
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. 
8 
Matter ofN-R-
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 offer 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 influence 
on the field as a whole." !d. at 219, n.6. 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 appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. 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 of Otiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
0 RD ER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofN-R-, ID# 17826 (AAO Aug. 26, 2016) 
9