dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF W-T-S-0-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 25,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a software company, seeks to classifY the Beneficiary, a solutions analyst, as a member 
of the professions holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 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 employment-based 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 
established the Beneficiary's eligibility as an advanced degree professional, but did not establish that 
a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
The matter is now before us on appeal.. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the record 
demonstrates its eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner submits a brief and 
additional evidence. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate the 
beneficiary's 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, -
Matter of W-T-S-G-
(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) National interest waiver. ... 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.CJ 
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, !Olst 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 the beneficiary seeks 
employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. I d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must show 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, a petitioner's assurance 
that the beneficiary 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 that the beneficiary has a history of demonstrable 
achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. !d. at 219, n.6. 
1 Pursuant to section 1517 of the Homeland Security Act of2002 ("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 of the 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 W-T-S-G-
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Beneficiary qualifies as an advanced degree professional, and that 
his proposed work as a solutions analyst has 
substantial intrinsic merit. The two findings at issue in 
this matter are (1) whether the Petitioner established that the benefits of such work are national in 
scope as required under the second prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis, and (2) whether 
the Petitioner demonstrated that the Beneficiary's past record of achievement is sufficient to meet 
the third prong. 
In a letter accompanying the Form l-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the Petitioner 
described its business as providin g "Information Managements systems, backfile conversion and 
data hosting solutions to a wide variety of industries and Government agencies." The Petitioner 
attested that it "has already provided services to multiple government agencies," allowing such 
agencies .to "work more efficiently and effectively." Regarding the national scope of the proposed 
work, the Petitioner stated: "While we have worked with local and county government agencies, it is 
our plan to move these operations on a national bases and to set standards that will soon become 
national goals of all government agencies that rely on information technolo gy and efficiency for 
their operations." · 
The Petitioner stated that the Beneficiary's duties will include: analyzing, designing, and 
implementing document management systems; assisting the project management team with technical 
delivery and client interfacing; and designing, implementing, and maintaining software for content 
management systems and services, web development, and workflow automation. The Petitioner 
indicated that ·the process of obtaining a labor certification for the Beneficiary would be too slow for 
its needs , and that the company offers a unique benefit to government agencies that substantially 
outweighs the national interest inherent in the labor certification process. 
In addition to copies of the Beneficiar y's resume and academic credentials , the Petitioner provided 
printouts from its website and promotional materials from a partner company, 
"Customer Profile" documents from reflected work with the Petitioner on online 
document management projects for 
.Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk in California, and the 
Mississippi, the 
Arizona. 
The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), asking for additional documentation to establish 
eligibility under the analysis set forth in NYSDOT. The Petitioner was requested to submit evidence 
that the benefits of the proposed work are national in scope, and that the Beneficiary has a past 
record of specific prior achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
The ·Petitioner indicated its RFE response included "major additional contracts with multi-state 
governmental agencies for (the Petitioner] that involve [the Beneficiary] in a critical role in the 
national interest." The submitted evidence included detailed documentation regarding three of the 
Petitioner 's contracts. The Petitioner provided a "Statement of Work" reflecting that it was hired to 
upgrade an existing Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) and Document Capture 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of W-T-S-G-
System for ' in Arizona. In addition, the Petitioner submitted a purchase order 
and partial copy of a "Statement of Work" for an upgrade of an existing EDMS for 
Finally, the RFE Response included a partial copy of a 
"Statement of Work" for the upgrade and implementation of an Electric Content Management 
System for ' None of the submitted documentation 
mentioned the Beneficiary's role on the projects. However, the Beneficiary indicated in an 
accompanying email exchange with Counsel that he managed these projects "from start to finish" 
along with another project for ' 
He also listed other ongoing projects on which he did not hold a major role. 
In the RFE response letter, the Petitioner maintained that it serves the national interest because its 
business is "now interstate and will continue to expand our operations on a national basis." It stated: 
"What can be more compelling than work with law enforcement for sex offenders, for police and fire 
agencies and other important governmental services for state-of-the-art information and technology 
systems." The Petitioner argued that this workis "just as important as civil engineering for roads 
and bridges," referring to the work of the beneficiary in NYSDOT. 
Regarding the instant Beneficiary, the Petitioner indicated that he "is a better fit than most in [the 
proposed] role due to his degrees in Computer Science, Mathematics and Systems Engineering." 
The Petitioner further noted that he has a "wealth of experience" as a software engineer and team 
leader and a "diverse background that aligns perfectly with the current job duties." 
In denying the Formi-140, the Director found that the Petitioner had not shown that the benefits of 
the proposed work would be national in scope as required under the second prong of the NYSDOT 
analysis, or that the Beneficiary had achieved a degree of influence on the field as a whole under the 
third prong. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the record before the Director established 
eligibility for the benefit sought, and that proper weight was not accorded to the evidence submitted 
in response to the RFE. The Petitioner states that 
it demonstrated "the national scope of the services 
and benefits to our public agencies" by submitting "ongoing government agency contracts" 
including contracts with "public safety agencies." It further argues that "[d]eveloping a model for 
the highest and best IT standards by [the Petitioner] and [the Beneficiary] is now a national top 
objective." In addition, the Petitioner submits documentation relating to recent contracts with 
an energy infrastructure company in North Carolina, 
in Arizona, and 
A National Scope 
We find the Petitioner has not shown that the benefits of the proposed work are national in scope. 
The Beneficiary's job duties include participating in the design and implementation of document and 
content management systems. The Petitioner has demonstrated that it has performed work for 
government entities in multiple states, and it has indicated its intent to expand its business "on a 
national basis." We note that work affecting individual organizations does not become "national in 
scope" based solely on the diverse locations of the organizations served. While. we recognize that 
4 
Matter of W-T-S-G-
the Petitioner's information systems have value to the client agencies and the customers they serve, 
this relates to the substantial intrinsic merit of the proposed work, which is not in question. The 
Petitioner has not established how the Beneficiary's work as a solutions analyst on such projects will 
have a national effect. 
As discussed above, the Petitioner has argued that the Beneficiary's work on contracts for 
government entities including "public safety agencies" is 'just as important" as the bridge 
maintenance and engineering work performed by the beneficiary in NYSDOT, which was found to be 
national in scope. The finding of national scope in that decision was not based on the "importance" 
of the beneficiary's work, but on the fact that it served the interests of many regions of the country as 
part of the national transportation system. !d. at 217. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the 
Beneficiary's work will similarly offer benefits at a national level. 
B. Influence on the Field 
We find that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the Beneficiary has had sufficient influence on 
his field to satisfy the third prong of the NYSDOT analysis. As stated above, that prong requires a 
petitioner to demonstrate that he or she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than would anavailable U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. To do this, a 
petitioner must establish "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence 
on the field as a whole." !d. at 219, n. 6. 
In this instance, the Petitioner has not claimed or established that the Beneficiary has influenced his 
field of endeavor. As stated above, the submitted documentation about the Petitioner's contracts do 
not specify the role played by the Beneficiary. Regardless, the record does not include evidence 
demonstrating that any systems he designed have been widely emulated by other companies or have 
otherwise affected the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner has stated that the Beneficiary's background, skills, and experience make him 
especially well qualified for the position relative to other workers. Any statement that a petitioner 
possesses useful skills or experience, 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 NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
As noted above, the Petitioner also indicated that its time constraints are not amenable to going 
through the process of obtaining a labor certification for the Beneficiary. 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 tield. !d. at 218, n.S. 
5 
Matter ofW-T-S-G-
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 l&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). The Petitioner in 
this case has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the benefits of the proposed 
work are national in scope or that the Beneficiary has a .past record of demonstrable achievement 
with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that a waiver of the job offer requirement will be in the national interest of the United 
States. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofW-T-S-G-, ID# 17232 (AAO May 25, 2016) 
6