dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Political Science

U.S. Department of Elomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 03 145 50865 
IN RE: 
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. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
u 
%be* P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. 
The director denied the petition for abandonment, but subsequently reopened the proceeding on the 
petitioner's motion, and denied the petition on the merits. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. fj 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. At the time he filed the 
petition, the petitioner was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of New Orleans. The petitioner later served as 
an instructor at the University of Memphis, and is now an assistant professor at Campbellsville (Kentucky) 
University. 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 found 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. 
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. 
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, 
1 Olst Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1989). 
Page 3 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), published 
at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)] 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. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 2 15 (Commr. 1998), has set forth several factors 
which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, it must be shown that 
the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must be shown that the proposed 
benefit will be national in scope. 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. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly must be 
established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. The 
petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "pro~pective'~ is used 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. 
We also note that the 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 offerllabor 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. 
In a statement accompanying his initial submission, the petitioner described his work and explained why he 
believed this work to qualify him for the national interest waiver: 
I am a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Political Science [at the] University of New 
Orleans, doing research in democratization and American foreign policy to promote 
democracy, human rights, and conflict resolution in the developing world. I am also an 
adjunct faculty in the College of Arts and Social Sciences of Southern University at New 
Orleans. . . . 
My current research deals with democratic institutions such as electoral systems and party 
systems in new democrac[ies] with a focus on the basic knowledge of their operation and 
how to make them effective. The difference[s] between my research and others are 
multifaceted. Here are two of them. First, while most scholars limited their research to old 
democracies, my research directly addresses the democratic institutions in new democracies 
and compares the function of democratic governing between old and new democracies. . . . 
Simply put, an examination of wider cases in my analysis reveals that the function of 
democratic institution[s] is quite different between old and new democracies and thus 
politicians both domestic and external (e.g., American foreign policy makers and 
international organization leaders) should be more careful in policy-making and institutional 
design aiming at an effective democracy. 
Second, I use better research techniques than conventional studies to generate more reliable 
results. I am the first and the only author (as [far as] I can know) who applies a method of 
sampling choices and econometric methodologies (regression with robust standard error) to 
resolve a dilemma that has long baffled researchers in the statistic[al] analysis of the 
relationship between electoral systems and the effective number of parties. . . . 
My research has attracted increasing attention in the academia. . . . 
As democracy, counter-terrorism, and conflict resolution become vital national interests of 
the U.S. and paramount targets of American foreign policy in the new century, scientific 
knowledge of democratic institutions in new democracies help understand the function of 
democracy in general and help hammer out workable and efficient foreign policies of the 
United States aiming at stable and effective democracies in the developing countries. . . . 
In short, my research work has great potential to benefit the national interests of the U.S. not 
only because of its close relevance to the American foreign policy goals, but also because of 
its superiority to others. 
The petitioner submitted copies of articles and abstracts, and evidence of his participation in various panels 
and conferences. This evidence establishes that the petitioner is active and productive in his field, but cannot 
suffice to show the impact or importance of the petitioner's work relative to that of others in the specialty. 
The petitioner observed that one of his written works "was approved a certificate of registration from the U.S. 
copyright office." The awarding of a copyright is, at best, proof of originality or priority of a claim of 
authorship. The petitioner did not show that the United States Copyright Office judges copyright applications 
based on scholarly significance. 
The petitioner submitted several letters from faculty members of the University of New Orleans and Southern 
University at New Orleans. Coordinator of the Political Science Program at Southern 
University at New Orleans, stated that the petitioner "is a conscientious and diligent teacher" and "precisely 
the kind of teacher we need here at the University." Classroom instruction, however competent, tends to lack 
national scope. See Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation at 2 1 7, n.3. 
Various University of New Orleans faculty members asserted that the petitioner's research is insightful and 
valuable. Associate Professor for instance, states that the petitioner's "research has 
especially important implications for current US foreign policy." The initial submission, however, contained 
no evidence that the petitioner's work has attracted significant attention among foreign policy officials, or 
anywhere else outside of the Department of Political Science at the University of New Orleans. 
On June 25, 2004, the director issued a request for additional evidence, instructing the petitioner to submit 
evidence to establish exceptional ability and an executed Form ETA-750B Statement of Qualifications. This 
request was evidently mailed to I, who responded by returning the notice and 
indicating that the petitioner "is not our client. We attempted to send it to the address on [the notice], but it 
was returned." By June 2004, the petitioner had left New Orleans for a position at the University of 
Memphis. CIS records indicate that a change of address was recorded in August 2003, but the director sent 
the request for evidence to the prior address shown on the Form 1-1 40 petition. 
Because the petitioner did not respond to the request for evidence, the director denied the petition for 
abandonment on September 8, 2004, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(13). On December 27, 2006, the 
petitioner filed a motion to reopen, stating that he was unable to respond to the request for evidence because 
the director had mistakenly mailed the notice to an attorney who did not represent the petitioner. 
The petitioner asserted that his "research has enjoyed high recognition in the field of political science," stating 
that one of his conference papers "presented to the Southwest Social Sciences Association annual meeting of 
2003, San Antonio (see my original application) won the Pi Sigma Alpha best paper award." The petitioner, 
in his letter on motion, did not claim to be submitting evidence of this award with the motion. The AAO can 
find no first-hand documentary evidence of the claimed award (or its significance) in the record. Materials in 
the petitioner's initial submission indicate that the annual meeting took place April 16-19, 2003, after the 
petitioner had signed and dated his Form 1-140 petition on April 15,2003. At the time of the initial filing, the 
petitioner submitted conference registration materials to show that his "research papers [were] presented at 
important academic panels," but he did not mention the Pi Sigma Alpha award, indicating that the petitioner 
either had not yet received the award, or did not consider it important enough to mention at the time. 
The petitioner submits a copy of a letter, showing that he was invited "to participate in the People to People 
Ambassador Programs' delegation of professionals specializing in political science to meet in China in May 
2007." The petitioner also cited his experience "teaching in a variety of institutions including the Graduate 
School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Southern University at New Orleans . . . , University of 
Memphis, and currently Campbellsville University." Even if the petitioner had established the significance of 
these facts, which he has not done, the delegation visit and the petitioner's employment at the University of 
Memphis and Campbellsville University took place well after the petition's April 2003 filing date. The 
beneficiary of an immigrant visa petition must be eligible at the time of filing; subsequent developments 
cannot cause eligibility based on an already-filed petition. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45,49 (Regl. Commr. 1971). 
On March 21, 2007, the director granted the petitioner's motion to reopen the proceeding, but denied the 
petition on the grounds that the petitioner had not established the significance of his contributions as of the 
April 2003 filing date. The director noted that the petitioner's reputation as of the filing date appeared to be 
largely confined to the universities where the petitioner had studied or worked. 
On appeal from that decision, the petitioner asserts that the director "disregarded the Notice . . . and thus 
totally ignored (never mentioned) my further evidences for this purposes." The petitioner appears, here, to 
refer to his motion to reopen and the evidence accompanying that motion. The director, however, 
acknowledged the petitioner's submission of new evidence and the petitioner's "new letter . . . written 
December 21, 2006." The director also correctly observed that much of the newly submitted evidence 
concerned events that "ensued since the filing of the petition; however, eligibility has to be assessed [as ofl 
the 2003 filing date." It is clear that the director did not "disregard" or "ignore" the materials submitted with 
the petitioner's 2006 motion. 
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 burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. fj 1361. 
The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer accompanied by a 
labor certification issued by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting evidence and fee. Likewise, the 
AAO notes that the petitioner filed a Form 1-485 adjustment application, receipt number SRC-07-221-55785, on 
July 12, 2007. That adjustment application is entirely unrelated to his 2003 immigrant petition, and therefore the 
denial of the petition is without prejudice to the adjudication of that adjustment application or other related 
proceeding that may arise therefrom. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.