dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Physics

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 1 6 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administra tive Appeal s Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. , N.W ., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 2052 9-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case . 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions . If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current Jaw or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:ljwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
Q~~~ 
~onRosenb\r.J 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 'L 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The AAO withdrew the director's decision and remanded the petition to the director for 
further consideration and action. The director again denied the petition and certified the decision to the 
AAO for review. The AAO will affirm the director's decision to deny the petition. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on March 6, 2012, seeking 
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. The petitioner is a 
research and development engineer at 
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 denied the petition on 
November 19, 2012, stating 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 appealed the decision to the AAO, which withdrew the director's decision. The April 3, 
2013 remand order indicated that the director based the denial on improper factors, but that other 
concerns existed that the petitioner needed to address before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) could approve the petition. The director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on July 
22, 2013. After the petitioner responded to that notice, the director issued a certified denial notice on 
December 12, 2013. 
In response to the certified decision, the petitioner submits a brief and coptes of supporting 
documentation. 
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. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
rage .J 
The director did not dispute 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 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
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). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, P.L. 101-649, 
104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now USCIS] believes it appropriate to. leave the application of this test 
as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] 
standard must make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the 
"prospective national benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] 
The burden will rest with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the 
job offer will be in the national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
In re New York State Dep 't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm' r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien 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, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien 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 alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. Jd. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Yage 4 
The April 2013 remand notice contains a fuller discussion of the record and the proceeding to date, 
but a condensed summary follows. In a statement that accompanied the initial filing of the petition, 
the petitioner stated: 
[The petitioner] has made exceptional contributions to the field of physics, with 
emphasis in advancement of next generation materials such as thermoelectric 
materials and nanomaterials and high-technology applications ... . 
Among [the petitioner's] most impressive achievements is the development of more 
efficient thermoelectric materials. High quality thermoelectric materials should be 
excellent conductors of electricity but poor conductors of heat, a combination of 
properties that is exceedingly rare. Finding or creating new materials with good 
thermoelectric properties is one of the primary objectives of the field. [The 
petitioner] has been a leading researcher in this highly important drive to find new 
thermoelectric materials .. . . 
[The petitioner's] important scientific contributions have not been confined to 
thermoelectrics. His work also has been important in nanomaterials through his 
original investigations of the transport properties of carbon nanotubes. . . . [The 
petitioner] was able to achieve carbon nanotube aggregates that outperformed 
samples made using previous methods by about 10 times, an incredibly significant 
result .... 
All of these achievements prove [the petitioner] is destined to make great 
contributions to his field in the future. 
The substantial intrinsic merit and national scope of the petitioner's occupation are not in dispute in 
this proceeding. The issue at hand is whether, after conducting highly productive and influential 
research as a graduate student, the petitioner has continued to influence his field, thereby justifying 
expectations that he will continue to do so in the future. 
The petitioner completed his doctorate at in August 2009, 
followed by a postdoctoral fellowship at from November 2009 
to July 2010. By the time he filed the petition, the petitioner had also worked for three employers in 
succession: from September 2010 to September 2011; 
from October 2011 to December 2011; and at 
since January 2012. 
An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of 
filing the benefit request and must continue to be eligible through adjudication. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.2(b)(l). 
Therefore, to justify projections of future benefit, the petitioner cannot rely solely on his achievements 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page) 
at He must show that he continued to engage in qualifying activities with his employers, and 
that he remains eligible for the waiver. 
Database printouts submitted with the petltwn showed over 100 citations of the petitioner 's 
published work. In the denial notice, the director stated that the petitioner had not established the 
significance of the citations. The 2013 remand order withdrew this finding , while indicating that 
other issues prevented outright approval of the petition, including adverse information regarding 
and a lack of evidence of the petitioner's ongoing influence on his field. 
The petitioner's initial submission includedfive witness letters from researchers who described the 
petitioner's past work and stated that they strongly supported the petition. One of the witnesses, 
founder, chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of stated 
that his company "developed the prototype of in 2001, after a bioterrorism incident 
involving anthrax spores sent through the mail. Mr. stated: 
[The petitioner] has worked at since September 2010. I was, however, 
aware of his work in the area of thermal science, physics, and materials engineering 
through his publications even before I recruited him to join our company. Having 
read of [the petitioner's] previous work experiences and unprecedented scientific 
contributions in both fundamental physics and thermodynamics as well as his more 
recent infrared technology research . . . , I offered him a permanent position as 
Thermal Research Scientist at to conduct the fundamental 
research investigations for 
He has played a major role on our research team since joining, and his expertise has 
enabled us to make significant advances in thermal dynamic issues. 
The remand order contained the following passage: 
All of the witness letters in the record date from June and July of 2011, eight to nine 
months before the petition's March 2012 filing date. When the witnesses wrote their 
letters, the petitioner worked at For 
the most part, the witnesses discussed the petitioner's graduate studies at 
- Every published article by the petitioner 
identified as the petitioner's institutional affiliation. Also, every 
article names who supervised the petitioner 's 
doctoral studies, as a co-author. The record, therefore, does not show that the 
petitioner has produced new research for publication since leaving Articles 
published after the petitioner left appear to be based on work that the 
petitioner had previously performed at that university. 
Since leaving in 2009, the petitioner has worked for four different 
employers, but appears to have ceased to publish new research. Therefore, his 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
production of highly-cited work while a doctoral student at 
gauge of his continuing impact on the field .... 
is not a reliable 
The petitioner left [in September 2011], and therefore his 
employment with that company offers no prospective benefit to the United States. 
The petitioner arrived at in January 2012 after three months at 
but the initial submission contains little information about the petitioner's work at 
either company, or about his earlier postdoctoral training at from 2009 to 
2010 .... 
Because the record is virtually silent regarding the petitioner's post- work for 
employers other than the AAO cannot consider the impressive citation 
rate of his student work to be the final or definitive word on his ongoing impact and 
influence on his field. In the absence of new published research, the petitioner must 
identify some other means by which he continues to influence his field to an extent 
that would warrant approval of the national interest waiver. 
The remand order also indicated that the Securities and Exchange Commission had filed a complaint 
against charging principals of that company, including with "defrauding 
investors through various misrepresentations and schemes while raising at least $26 million in 
investor funds" while the company sold "fewer than ten machines" "(i]n its ten year history." The 
remand order stated: 
There is no evidence, and the AAO does not allege, that the petitioner participated or 
was in any way aware of the violations alleged in the Commission's complaint. 
Nevertheless, the complaint is directly relevant because, apart from the petitioner's 
now-completed student work, the record focuses on the petitioner 's work at 
to illustrate the petitioner's ongoing contributions to the national interest. 
If, as alleged, the company sold "fewer than ten machines" to disinfect mail, then the 
scope of the company's impact (and therefore that of its employees) is greatly limited. 
With respect to his most recent employment, the petitioner himself provided this description of his 
duties at "Develop and research technology based solutions that advance the science and 
application of generating, controlling , and utilizing energy beams." president and 
chief executive officer of stated that the petitioner "is engaged in the development and delivery 
of technology based solutwns that advance the science and application of generating, controlling and 
utilizing energy beams. His work is across a broad range of high technology applications ." 
The remand order quoted a web site, operated by 
We design, manufacture and sell quality products that support the sciences , including 
histology , light microscopy, electron microscopy, materials science and products for 
the production , control and application of electron beam technology. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
offers vented laboratory microwave ovens for light and electron microscopy and 
histology specimen preparation. Our microwaves are available with a options [sic] for 
applications from basic tissue staining with air agitation to tissue processing or 
fixation procedures that require precise temperature control. 
For over 40 years, has specialized in manufacturing Filaments, apertures and 
many other components for Electron Beam applications. In addition to our standard 
offerings for Electron Microscopy and E-Beam Welding, we also provide many 
OEMs with specialty filaments for applications like Vacuum Deposition, Ion Implant 
and X-Ray, just to name a few. 
The remand order stated: "From the above description, it is not evident how the achievements 
described at length in counsel's introductory statement and in the witness letters relate to the 
petitioner's work at 
In the July 2013 RFE, the director advised the petitioner that the available evidence indicated that the 
petitioner made significant contributions with impact on the field while studying at but did 
not show further impact from the petitioner's subsequent work. The director instructed the petitioner to, 
"submit evidence to establish that ... the beneficiary continues to impact and influence the field." 
The petitioner's response included updated citation information. The petitioner stated that his "work 
has been cited at least 169 times, with 117 citations by independent researchers worldwide," which "is a 
reliable indication that [the petitioner's] original work has continued and will continue to have a greater 
influence and impact [than] others in his field." The citations all relate to work that the petitioner 
undertook at The increasing number of citations shows the lasting impact of work that the 
petitioner completed at but it does not establish that the petitioner continues to engage in 
influential work. The ongomg Impact of work published years ago is independent of the petitioner's 
future presence in the United States. Therefore, the citation data does not address whether the 
petitioner's work after leaving has continued to influence the field. 
The petitioner's response to the RFE did not include any documentary evidence to establish the impact 
of his work at _ Instead, the petitioner focused on his current 
employment with In a new letter, described the petitioner's work at a research and 
development engineer at that company: 
(The petitioner] is engaged in research, development, production, continuous 
improvement, process documentation, and engineering support for a range of products 
manufactured for electron beam applications. The physics research that (the petitioner] 
is conducting covers a wide breadth of research responsibilities, including the selection 
of proper materials, as well as in-depth processing and characterization of the materials 
to optimize emissions. 
(b)(6)
Page~ 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
In his research projects, [the petitioner] is devoted to more precisely measuring emitter 
operating parameters and keeping them in s ec. The fruits of his research are intended 
to improve product performance at such as the 
1nese 
devices are widely employed for semiconductor and micro device inspection. Our 
customers include companies like many 
others, and are spread all over the world, from the United States, to Asia, and Europe. 
Using these companies inspect integrated circuit chips on their production 
line, promoting quality control in nationally and internationally-distributed 
semiconductor technologies. 
Moreover, other research and development projects [the petitioner] has contributed to 
include the following: 
1. [The petitioner] has contributed to the design of x-ray tube prototypes that 
reduce spot sizes to the micrometer range. This prototype has been procured by 
based leading supplier of advanced nano-optical and x-ray 
components used in display electronics, imaging, and analytical instrumentation. 
2. [The petitioner] has also conducted research for the development of x-ray tubes 
with micrometer range spot size to dramatically improve the resolution of 
On behalf of [the 
petitioner] is applying electron-beam lithography to cnaractenze me spm stze of 
these micro x-ray tubes for the of our client, 
an international company with offices in Michigan, Canada, and Japan. 
3. In another important national project, [the petitionerl designed and manufactured 
These are currently being 
implemented[]by the 
of Energy government research laboratory, in 
furthering their national 
temporal resolution of 100 nanoseconds. 
a U.S. Department 
their 
research goal of realizing a 
Given the role [the petitioner] plays in these nationally crucial electron-optics projects, it 
is in the national interest of our country to keep such a talented and gifted scientist in our 
midst. With a demonstrated record of achievements in the field of physics, both in 
academia and industry, continued contributions can be expected from him. 
The above letter describes the nature of the petitioner's work, but does not establish the significance, 
impact, or influence of that work. Mr. did not say how the petitioner 's accomplishments stand 
out from those of other research and development engineers in the industry. 
A purchase order from the shows that had 
contracted with for the following: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page ':J 
Item Material/Description 
1 Design, Tooling and First Article Prototype Emitter per attached drawing 
General Prototype Specifications: 
1. Cathode Base: Standard Denka 174C Type 
2. Emission Material: Tantalum 
3. Surface Finish: Mirror 
4. Parallelism: 0.05mm 
2 
1 Additional Emitter Prototype Parts, per attached drawing 
No design modifications 
General Prototype Specifications [as stated above] 
The purchase order shows a "Completion Date" of June 27, 2012, but also includes a noted indicating 
"Prices are in accordance with your offer number dated May 1, 2013 provided by 
The prices are obscured; the purchase order included the instruction "DECLARE NO VALUE, DO 
NOT INSURE." A contracts specialist signed the 
purchase order on May 7, 2013, nearly a year 
after its stated completion date, and after the AAO had issued the remand order. 
The petitioner submitted printout of electronic mail messages with the subject line "design of 
photoemission tip for . Dr. ; was one of the contacts at concerning 
the project. Most of the messages are from mid-April 2013, but one message chain dates from 
September 2013. The petitioner sent some of the messages and received others; some messages were 
addressed to others and the petitioner received forwarded copies. The messages refer to "the emitter ... 
for the photoemission gun," and Mr. told Dr. that the petitioner's "background is in 
physics and he is responsible for R&D in our E-Beam division .... [H]e has already started boning up 
on photoemission theory." In a message to Dr. the petitioner offered technical comments 
and questions such as "Does the laser shine the plate with pulses or continuously?" In a September 
2013 follow-up message, Dr. stated: 
We have installed the emitter in the gun and the gun is on the microscope. At the 
moment we are going through the alignment process and as soon as we get a beam that 
we can use we will let you know. There are some minor changes that we would make to 
the emitter for the next version, but we are waiting for the instrument to work and then 
will send you all the information and what we will need for version 2. 
The exhibits described above demonstrate that the petitioner worked on contract with on 
a project relating to the electron microscope, but they do not establish that the petitioner's 
work has had an impact on the field that would warrant the national interest waiver. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
rage 1u 
Innovation is not always sufficient to meet the national interest threshold. For example, an alien cannot 
secure a national interest waiver simply by demonstrating that he or she holds a patent. Whether the 
specific innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case by case basis . NYSDOT at 
221 n.7. There is no blanket waiver for engineers in the petitioner's specialty, and not everyone who 
designs new products, or improves existing ones, qualifies for the waiver. 
The petitioner stated that, based on his earlier achievements as well as his "continuing achievements at 
it is reasonable to predict" future benefit to the national interest that would 
warrant a waiver. The initial waiver claim had, as described in the initial filing, "emphasis [on] 
advancement of next generation materials such as thermoelectric materials and nanomaterials and high­
technology applications." The latest submission does not address the concerns expressed in the remand 
order; it does not show that the petitioner's work at elates to "next generation materials such as 
thermoelectric materials and nanomaterials." 
At the time of the remand order in April 2013, the evidence of record suggested that, while the 
petitioner had conducted influential research on thermoelectric materials as part of his graduate studies, 
he has not continued in that field. The evidence submitted in response to the RFE supports this 
conclusion, as does the continued lack of evidence regarding the nature of the petitioner's employment 
at from 2009 to 2011. The remand order had included the -
observation that that "the initial submission contains little information about the petitioner's work" at 
those companies. 
In the December 2013 certified denial notice, the director acknowledged the petitioner's latest 
submissions, but concluded that the petitioner had not established that his ongoing work after leaving 
has continued to influence the field, or that the petitioner has continued conducting research of 
the type that formed the foundation of the original waiver claim. 
In response to the certified decision, the petitioner states that the director failed to consider "critical 
evidence of Petitioner's post-graduation research," specifically "two peer-reviewed journal papers 
[published] after August 3, 2009 .... [T]hese two papers have so far been cited 8 times, 7 of which are 
independent." The director had previously addressed these papers, stating that they "reflect[] work that 
the beneficiary performed at 
The petitioner asserts that the director's conclusions were "drawn in a hurry without scrutiny," although 
he also acknowledges that those conclusions are "possibly true." The petitioner states that the director 
did not rule out "the possibility that Dr. is a co-author because Dr. characterized the samples 
prepared after the Petitioner left The petitioner submits no evidence to support 
this assertion. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes 
of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 
1998) (citing Matter ofTreasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
rage 11 
The petitioner also asserts that "it is not uncommon for fresh PhD graduates to have their doctoral 
advisor as a co-author of their papers in the early years of their career." To support this assertion, the 
petitioner submits the curriculum vitae of another researcher who earned a doctorate in 2000, and 
whose published work sometimes named his doctoral advisor as a co-author as late as 2008. The record 
does not contain sufficient evidence to show that the petitioner's situation parallels that of the other 
scientist. 
Both of the petitioner's new articles show the petitioner's institutional affiliation as 
(one also lists as a secondary affiliation), and all but one of the listed co-authors were also 
at The mternal evidence within the articles themselves, therefore, is consistent with the 
conclusion that the articles report research performed by esearchers. 
In a new letter dated December 30, 2012, Dr. assistant professor at second author of 
both of the papers under discussion, stated that the petitioner's "data analysis and theoretical modeling 
after he completed his degree constitute a crucial part for the successful publication of these two peer­
reviewed journal papers." It is evident that the petitioner's late contributions to the papers represent the 
completion of research that he had begun before graduating. 
Dr. adds: "[the petitioner] and I had recently put together a full manuscript on the magnetic 
properties of ' There is no evidence that any journal had accepted the manuscript 
for publication. Dr. did not claim that this manuscript relied on research that the petitioner continues 
to perform. It is based, rather, "upon many phone and email discussions in the past 2 years." The 
petitioner submits printouts of electronic mail messages dated between March 2011 and January 2012. 
In a January 12, 2012 message, the petitioner stated: "January is a little slow here in my company 
... So I am now reading the data again these days .. .. I'm going to put all the data 
together and make a story out of them. Do you think we have enough data to publish a paper now?" 
The correspondence indicates that, while the manuscript itself is new, the information in that manuscript 
involves data collected previously which the petitioner newly analyzed during a "slow" period at 
The petitioner states that newly submitted figures show that his post-2009 papers have earned an above­
average number of independent citations, and that previous witnesses who commented on those papers 
"cannot tell which part of the work on the paper was completed after Petitioner graduated." One of 
those previous witnesses, Dr. of the asserts in 
a new letter that the petitioner's two post-2009 papers continue to influence Dr. own research. 
These assertions do not address the key ground for denial of the petition, specifically the absence of 
evidence that the petitioner has continued to perform influential research in thermoelectric materials 
after leaving There is no evidence that the petitioner's employment outside of has 
generated further peer-reviewed published work. The response to the certified denial does not establish 
that the petitioner's work at closely relates to the earlier work that formed the basis for the waiver 
claim. It shows, rather, that the petitioner has occasionally revisited work that remained unfinished at 
the time he completed his dissertation, while employed at evidently unrelated tasks. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page lL 
The record supports the director's decision. The petitioner's graduate work with thermoelectric 
materials produced several high-impact articles, and those articles will continue to influence 
researchers regardless of the petitioner's future immigration status. Since that time, however , the 
record does not show that the petitioner has continued to perform new research or to publish the 
results from it. Early submissions emphasized the benefit to national security from the petitioner 's 
work with The petitioner has not responded to documentation that calls into question 
the extent, if any, to which engineers have materially contributed to the field. The 
latest information relating to the petitioner's current employment shows that the petitioner has 
participated in fulfilling contracts with various clients, but the record does not establish the 
significance of these recent activities. The profile of the clients (such as does not necessarily 
correlate to the importance of a given project. 
The petitioner has not established a history of ongoing 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 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 alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole"). 
As is clear from a plain reading of 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 alien. 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 AAO will affirm the certified denial for the above stated reasons. 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 of Otiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has 
not met that burden. 
ORDER: The director's decision ofDecember 12, 2013 is affirmed . The petition is denied.