dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Materials Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF V-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 31,2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, who holds a Ph.D. in technical sciences, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b)(2) ofthe 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 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 finding that the Petitioner did not establish 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. Specifically, the Director concluded 
that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the necessary influence in the field. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. The Petitioner submitted correspondence requesting two 
extensions, both of which we granted, in order to obtain expert letters in support of his appeal. We have 
since received a statement from the Petitioner indicating that he was unable to such letters, so we will 
base our decision on the record currently before us. 
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 pe~inent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens 
of Exceptional Ability.-
Matter ofV-P-
(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.[1] 
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 Dep't ofTransp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSD01), 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 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 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 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 
Matter of V-P-
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner holds a master of engineering materials and a Ph.D. in the science of metals and 
thermal processing of metals. While the Petitioner did not initially describe his proposed work, he 
provided a statement in response to a request for evidence from the Director. According to his 
statement, the Petitioner's "knowledge of methods for obtaining, processing, researching and the 
protection of metallic alloys can be used in a vast array of fields." He further stated his intent to 
"us[ e] modem materials in combination with [] film heating elements" in order "to create a 
sportswear [line] that will effectively bum excess weight by localizing heat to the problem areas 
during training." 
The Petitioner submitted various documents including copies of his academic credentials, a list of 
publications and presentations, a personal statement, and two patents registered in the Ukraine in 
2013. The record establishes that the Petitioner is a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree, that his research is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit, and that the proposed benefits of 
his work will be national in scope.2 It remains, then, to determine whether he will benefit the 
national interest to a greater extent than an available U.S. worker with the ,same minimum 
qualifications. 
Under the third prong of the NYSDOT analytical framework, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or 
she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. 
worker having the sap1e minimum qualifications. A petitioner must have a past record that "justifies 
projections of future benefit to the national interest" by exhibiting "some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole." !d. at 219, n. 6. As previously stated, 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. Without evidence of the influence his work has already had on the field as a whole, the 
Petitioner cannot be found to qualify for the national interest waiver. 
On appeal, the Petitioner requested, and was granted, two extensions to obtain letters from experts 
which "will identify the Applicant's potential contributions and evaluate the significance of their 
future scientific impact." The Petitioner does not claim that his work has already influenced the 
field as a whole as required under the third prong of the NYSDOT analytical framework. Without 
such a showing, employment in a beneficial occupation does not, by itself, qualify the Petitioner for 
the national interest waiver. 
Notwithstanding the above, the record does not establish the Petitioner's impact on the field. 
Regarding his publications and patents, the Petitioner did not provide evidence, such as a citation 
record indicative of the impact of his work or letters from others indicating the use of his patent, 
which establishes that his research has already influenced the field. As stated by the Director, "[t]he 
record does not show any external interest in the beneficiary's article[s] by members of the 
2 A review of the record establishes the Petitioner's intention to continue his research and therefore, he has demonstrated 
that the proposed benefits of his work will be national in scope. 
3 
Matter ofV-P-
discipline" and "there is no evidence to suggest that the patented materials have been applied, 
marketed and accepted by the intended audience." While publications and patents may demonstrate 
that that the Petitioner's research findings were shared with others and may be acknowledged as 
original based on their selection to be presented or accepted, without additional evidence they do not 
establish that those findings have had an impact on the field as a whole. 
We note that the Petitioner also contends that his "work is unique." As stated by the Director, 
"[s]pecial or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold." 
In fact, that issue properly falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien 
employment certification process. See§ 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act; NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 215, 
221. 
III. CONCLUSION 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced 
degree professional or individual of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a 
job offer based on national interest. For the reasons discussed above, we find the record insufficient 
to confirm that the scope of the Petitioner's proposed work or 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 sought by the Petitioner. Considering the record, the Petitioner has not established by 
a preponderance of the evidence that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification 
will be in the national interest of the United States. 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner has not met his 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). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofV-P-, ID# 45811 (AAO Oct. 31, 2016) 
4