dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Quality And Manufacturing Management

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve., N.W., MS 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER
OCT2 6 2011
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMem erof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degreeor anAlien of ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALF OFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the documents
relatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyou wishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.The
specific requirementsfor filing such a requestcan be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing aFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,
with a fee of $630. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat any motion must be filed
within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrant
visa petition. The matteris now beforethe AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) on appeal. The
AAO will dismisstheappeal.
The petitionerseeksclassificationpursuantto section203(b)(2)of the ImmigrationandNationality
Act (theAct), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asamemberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree.The
petitionerseeksemploymentasadirectorof quality. Thepetitionerassertsthatanexemptionfromthe
requirementof ajob offer, andthusof a laborcertification,is in thenationalinterestof the United
States.Thedirectorfoundthatthepetitionerqualifiesfor classificationasa memberof theprofessions
holdingan advanceddegree,but that thepetitionerhasnot establishedthat an exemptionfrom the
requirementof ajob offerwouldbein thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.
On appeal,thepetitionersubmitsabrief from counsel.
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart:
(2) Aliens Who Are Membersof the ProfessionsHoldingAdvancedDegreesor Aliensof
ExceptionalAbility. -
(A) In General.- Visasshallbemadeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho are
membersof the professionsholding advanceddegreesor their equivalentor who
becauseof theirexceptionalabilityin thesciences,arts,or business,will substantially
benefitprospectivelythenationaleconomy,culturalor educationalinterests,or welfare
of the UnitedStates,andwhoseservicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or business
aresoughtby anemployerin theUnitedStates.
(B) Waiverof JobOffer-
(i) . . . theAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorneyGeneraldeemsit to bein
thenationalinterest,waivetherequirementsof subparagraph(A) thatanalien's
servicesin the sciences,arts,professions,or businessbe soughtby an employer
in the United States.
Thedirectordid not disputethatthe petitionerqualifiesasa memberof theprofessionsholdingan
advanceddegree.Thesoleissuein contentionis whetherthepetitionerhasestablishedthatawaiverof
thejob offerrequirement,andthusalaborcertification,is in thenationalinterest.
Neitherthe statutenor the pertinentregulationsdefinethe term "nationalinterest." Additionally,
Congressdid not providea specificdefinitionof "in thenationalinterest." The Committeeon the
Judiciarymerelynotedin its reportto theSenatethatthecommitteehad"focusedon nationalinterest
by increasingthenumberandproportionof visasfor immigrantswhowouldbenefittheUnitedStates
economicallyandotherwise.. . ." S.Rep.No.55,101stCong.,1stSess.,11(1989).
Page3
Supplementaryinformationto regulationsimplementingthe ImmigrationAct of 1990(IMMACT),
publishedat56Fed.Reg.60897,60900(November29,1991),states:
The Service[now U.S. Citizenshipand ImmigrationServices(USCIS)] believesit
appropriateto leavetheapplicationof thistestasflexibleaspossible,althoughclearly
an alien seekingto meet the [national interest] standardmust make a showing
significantlyabovethatnecessaryto provethe"prospectivenationalbenefit"[required
of aliensseekingto qualify as"exceptional."] Theburdenwill restwith the aliento
establishthatexemptionfrom,or waiverof, thejob offerwill bein thenationalinterest.
Eachcaseisto bejudgedonitsownmerits.
Matterof NewYorkStateDept.of Transportation,22 I&N Dec.215(Act. Assoc.Comm'r 1998),has
setforth severalfactorswhich mustbe consideredwhenevaluatinga requestfor a nationalinterest
waiver. First, the petitionermustshowthat the alien seeksemploymentin an areaof substantial
intrinsicmerit. Next,the petitionermustshowthat the proposedbenefitwill be nationalin scope.
Finally,thepetitionerseekingthewaivermustestablishthatthealienwill servethenationalinterestto
a substantiallygreaterdegreethan would an availableU.S. worker having the sameminimum
qualifications.
While thenationalinterestwaiverhingeson prospectivenationalbenefit,thepetitionermustestablish
that the alien's past recordjustifies projectionsof future benefit to the national interest. The
petitioner'ssubjectiveassurancethat the alien will, in the future,servethe nationalinterestcannot
sufficeto establishprospectivenationalbenefit. The intentionbehindthe term "prospective"is to
requirefuture contributionsby the alien,ratherthanto facilitatethe entry of an alien with no
demonstrableprior achievements,andwhosebenefitto the nationalinterestwould thusbe entirely
speculative.
TheAAO alsonotesthattheregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(2)defines"exceptionalability" as"a
degreeof expertisesignificantly abovethatordinarily encountered"in a given areaof endeavor.By
statute,aliens of exceptionalability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification
requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given
alienseeksclassificationasanalienof exceptionalability, or asa memberof theprofessionsholding
anadvanceddegree,thataliencannotqualifyfor a waiverjust by demonstratinga degreeof expertise
significantlyabovethatordinarilyencounteredin his or herfield of expertise.
TheUSCISregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(4)(ii)requiresthata petitionerseekingto applyfor the
exemptionmust submitForm ETA-750B,Statementof Qualificationsof Alien (or corresponding
sectionsof ETA Form9089),in duplicate.Therecorddoesnot containthis requireddocument,and
thereforethe petitionerhas not properly appliedfor the nationalinterestwaiver. The director,
however,did notraisethisissue.TheAAO will, therefore,reviewthematteronthemeritsratherthan
leaveit atafindingthatthepetitionerdidnotproperlyapplyfor thewaiver.
Thepetitionerfiled theFormI-140petitiononJune29,2010. In anintroductoryletter,counselstated:
Page4
[Thepetitioner]is in the field of quality andmanufacturingmanagement.Usinghis
qualityimprovementsystem,hehashelped save$40million dollarsannually,
helped ave$600,000dollarsin profitannuallyfrom$17million dollarsof
salesand won the right to producewaterpumpsfor the
j elped inishdelayedprojects
in merely2 months(theprojectwasfruitlessfor 12monthsburning$500,000in cash);
helped mobilebusinessunitjumpfrom40thrankedin qualityto thetop5 in 6
months; helped implementISO 9000 and ISO 14000 international
certificationswithin 1 yearwhen. . . 3 yearswasthe norm; helped
companywin 80%of the morethan8 millions[sic]
cellphonemainboardsperyear. . . etc.
Counselthenturnedto thethreeprongsof thenationalinteresttestpublishedin Matter of NewYork
State Dept. of Transportation. The substantialintrinsic merit of quality managementin the
manufactureof electroniccomponentsis notin dispute.Theelectronicsindustryis a majoreconomic
enginein thedevelopedworld.
Counselstated:
Thebenefitof [thepetitioner's]employmentis nationalin scopebecausethestandards
thatheusesandcontributesto areinternationalin scope,andthebusinessthatheworks
in [is] atleastnationalin scope,thusbenefitingtheentireU.S.. . .
For hisjob of qualityandmanufacturingmanagement,[thepetitioner]auditsfactories
andtheentiresystemof thecompanyto makesurethatthemanufacturingprocessis as
efficientaspossible.
With respectto the final prongof the nationalinteresttest,relatingto the petitioner'srecordof
achievementin his field, counselstatedthatthepetitioner"hasa superiorbackgroundthatallowshim
to surpassa minimum[sic] qualifiedU.S.workerin producingdiscoveriesandbenefits." Counsel,in
that section of the letter, did not identify any specific "discoveries and benefits," instead stating that the
petitioner"is well educatedandhasthebackgroundnecessaryto leadandto producediscoveries."
Counsel quoted at length from severalwitness letters which, apart from documentationof the
beneficiary'seducationandtraining, constitutethe bulk of the evidencein the original submission.
DeguoLiu, executivedirectorof tated:
[Thepetitioner's]responsibilitiesincludeddirecting
theprogrammanagers,morethan500employees,andmorethan4,000operatorsatthe
[Thepetitioner]wasalsothekeypersonresponsiblefor supervisingthe
qualityteamsin 11subsidiarybusinessunitsfor desktop,laptop,server,cell phoneand
PDA manufacture.My overallimpressionof [the petitioner]is that he is a highly
competentexpertwith superiorvisionsin theareaof qualitymanagement.I rely onhis
Page5
expertisefor nearlyeveryaspectof quality management.For example,[the petitionerj
helped to develop lean manufacturing process and carried out six sigma
implementation,whichdramaticallyimproved overallqualityof manufacture
andproducts. [The petitioner]alsohelpedLenovoachievethe ISO9001,ISO14001
andOSHA systems.In addition,[thepetitioner]helpedus setup the group'ssupply
chainstrategy.. . .
[W]ithin merely6 month[s]of his arrival,[thepetitioner]improvedthe qualityof our
products from second tier to the top five out of forty Chinese mobile phone
manufactories.Duringthistime, arketsharealsojumpedfrom 1.5%to 7%
which was very significant.. . . The main reasonwhy we were ableto gain rapid
marketsharewasthat our qualitywasbetterthanthat of our competitors. And the
reasonwhy our quality improvedso muchwasin largepart dueto [the petitioner's
strategicplanningandalignmentof ourproductconcepts.. . . Therewereotherquality
teamsandquality expertswithin our company,however,noneof themhaveachieved
the level of accomplishmentandthe rapidpaceof advancementthat [the petitioner]
has. Thus,I am confidentto saythat [the petitioner]is, by far, amongthe top few
qualityandproductionexpertsin Chinaor evenin theworld.
. . . [Thepetitioner]is a crucialindividualto anyelectroniccompanythatis interested
in workingwith theChinesemanufacturers.. . .
Within our industry[thepetitioner]is quitefamous. Wheneverthereis a conference
and[thepetitioner]givesa speechregardingqualitymanagement,manufacturersfrom
all overtheworldin thisindustrywouldlistenandpayattention.
[The petitioner]is a foremostexperton quality control with respectto electronic
components,such as computers,cell phones,and other electronicproducts. The
expertise of [the petitioner] starts in 1999 when he was a product quality engineer for
. . [The petitioner] led a project that won the annual
pro uc ion conrac o mi ion ainboardsin 2000. This contract
accountedfor 80%of Nokia'sAsiaproductionordersandledthestrategiccooperation
between andso,[thepetitioner's]reputationwasprettywell-known
at the time in our industry. Many managersfrom differentcompaniestried to employ
[thepetitioner]. At local conferencesandnationalindustryconferences,manyvalue
[thepetitioner's]opinion.
Anothertaskthat[thepetitioner]hasaccomplishedwasthathetookchargeof theISO
9002andISO 14001systemsfor andsuccessfullycertifiedthem.. . . Withoutthe
certificationthat wasaccomplishedby [thepetitioner],neither could
successfullymanufacturethoseelectroniccomponents. If [the petitioner] did not
Page6
accomplishthecertificationsor delayedthecertifications,thelossof revenuewouldbe
in themillions.
Besidesthesequality assurancematters,[the petitioner)wasalsowell-knownin the
industryfor implementingleanmanufactureandsix sigmatechniquesto controland
improve processes.. . .
I found that he wasvery goodat creatinga Quality strategyfor
When[thepetitioner]workedastheDirectorof businessSupport,hehelpedto improve
theMeanTimeBetweenFailurefrom 30,000hoursto 40,000hours.. . . This work by
[the petitioner]helpedto reducecostsfrom Lenovoby about$40 million dollars
annually.. . .
I consider [the petitioner] to be one of the most accomplishedquality and
manufacturingindividualsin Asia, and other partsof the high-techmanufacturing
world that I haveworked at. . . .
Speakingfrom professionalexperience,I find that when working with U.S. based
companies,they typically have insufficientknowledgeon how to work with the
rapid[ly] changingelectronicsindustriesin China.. . . However,wheneverthe U.S.
companydecidesto work with an expertsuchas[thepetitioner],I find thatthe U.S.
companycanbetterkeepupwith thepacein Asia.. . .Thisis where[thepetitioner]has
a significantadvantage.[The petitioner]knowshow to makeimprovementswhile
keepingthecostdownandcontinueto keepthespeedof advancementhigh.
I haveknown [the petitioner]since2004. I havehad the honor of servingas the
committeememberchair [sic] in his thesisdissertation.. . . [Thepetitioner]wasalso
my studentin differentgraduateclasses.. . .
After [the petitioner]successfullycompletedhis degree,he went to work for
[The petitioner]wasemployedin the Quality andManufacturingDivision.
TheQualityof thecastingandmachiningmetalproductmanufacturingis thekey to the
successof the company. This is becauseafter the design processis over, the
manufacturingof the componentsmust have high quality standardor else the
componentswill fail unnecessarily.Basedon my experience,I find that[thepetitioner]
hassuperioranalyticalandmanagementskills thatenablehim to find newapproaches
to betterresolvetheobstacles.
My knowledgeof [the petitioner's]work comesfrom 2006 to 2008, when
employed[the petitioner]asa SeniorProductManager,andthereafterasa personal
Page7
contactfor qualityandmanufacturingissues.. . . I consider[thepetitioner]to beoneof
thehandful[of] peopleout therethatcanmakesignificantimprovementsto thequality
systemsof a company.. . . [A]t . . , within a shorttime of eightmonths,[the
petitioner]improvedthe on-timedeliveryfrom 50%to 85%for all customersandto
95% for the top customers'products. Secondly,[the] Customerrejectionrate [has]
droppedfrom 5% to 1%andsavedthe companymorethan$600,000annuallyand
customersatisfactionrate increasedfrom [sic]. [The petitioner's]achievementsare
incrediblefor ourcompany.
When[thepetitioner]cameto ourcompany,heinitiatedasystemthattargeted5 areas.
He focusedon ProductLife CycleManagement,QualityManagement,Manufacturing
Management,SupplyChinaManagement,and Major CustomerService. When he
started,therewasachallengethatlargecustomershavespecificrequirementsand
did not havethe managementability to in-takethe requirements.And so the on-time
deliverywasa majorproblem. The rejectionratewas20%,andsatisfactionwasat
60%. To solvetheseproblems,[the petitioner]choseto usethe ASTM standardto
assessfinishedproductqualityspecifications.. . . Thesestandardsremainedconfusing
to use,until [thepetitioner]systematicallysortedthemout.
[The petitioner]usedinternalinspectionsto makesurethat the productsof are
high qualityandintegratedtheentireproductionto ensurethatdefectiveproductsare
not givento the customers.[Thepetitioner]developeda four stepsystemfor
The first stepwasto understandcustomer'srequirements.. . . The secondstepwasto
keepcostlow. . . . Thethird stepwasto observethefactoriesandfind problems.[The
petitioner]wentto thefoundriesin Chinaandfoundmanyproblemsandamazingly,he
was knowledgeableenoughto solvethe problems. The fo[u]rth stepwas to train
qualified personnelsuch as productionprocessengineer,quality engineer. [The
petitioner]did all of theaboveandtheoutcomewasgreat.
. . . I tried to replace[thepetitioner]afterhe hasleft our company.However,I have
searchedandhavenot found anyoneevenremotelycapableof duplicatingwhat [the
petitioner] hasdonefor us.
My knowledgeof [thepetitioner's]workarisesfromthefactthatheauditedthisfactory
twice in 2008 and visited it five times in the past year for product quality and
manufacturingimprovementandmanagement.When[thepetitioner]wasauditingthe
factory,he madenumerousimprovementsandI greatlyappreciatehis hardwork. . . .
[Thepetitioner]is anincrediblyusefulindividualin hisfield.
In this letter,I would first like to discuss[the petitioner's]work at Apricorn. [The
petitioner] worked on quality management.. . . [The petitioner] would supervise
Page8
productsfrom From [the petitioner]would receiveoptical
drivesandexternalharddrives,secureharddrivesandeSATAharddrives. Forthese
products,[thepetitioner]wouldinvestigatethespecificationsrequestedby nd
maketheproductsto satisfytherequirement.. . . [Thepetitioner]wouldberesponsible
for building the prototype and the Engineeringverification test (EVT), Design
verificationtest(DVT), Productverificationtest(PVT). Next, [thepetitioner]would
do thePreproduction,andfinally theMassProduction.After theproductsarecreated,
[thepetitioner]woulddo thereliability testto makesurethattheproductsareasfail
proof aspossible.
. . . [The petitioner]can provideexcellentquality assurancefor the product. [The
petitioner]hasalreadyhelpedusto meetthequalityspecifications,contactthesuppliers
andhelpedusidentifytheweaknesswherewecanimprove.Thesesetof skillsarevery
vastandheappliesthesetohisdailydutiesatApricorn.. . .
[The petitioner's]designreviewprocessis alsovery impressive.. . . [The petitioner
can]conductManufacturingReadyReview(MRR) to drasticallyimprovequalityand
process. This is wherethe clients review factory's productflow and conducta
qualificationaudit. Veryfew individualsthatI knowcanconductthistypeof review. I
believethat[thepetitioner]is theonlypersonat thatcanconductthistypeof
review. Sofar, I heardthat[thepetitioner]hasfoundseveralmajorproblemsby using
MRR. . . .
Regarding[the petitioner's work at he has made
significantcontributionsfo aswell. [Thepetitioner]hasworkedontheflex drive
from Therequirementsfrom arequiterigorous.Forexample,Mequires
that therebe a buttonthat couldbe pushedandthat it popsup. requiresit to
function[]at least3,000times. Amongotherrequirements,thetolerancewasthemost
difficult to manage.. . . [The petitioner]madethe designpossiblein only about2
month[s]time.. . .Previously,therewas. . . 1yearof designfailure.. . . Over$500,000
was wasted in the design process. . . . [The petitioner's] method reduced the simplicity
[sic]andwaseasierto manufacture.
[The petitioner]is well known for his work at wherehe helpedthe
companyto improvesomuchthat won thebid to theheavypumpprojectfor the
waamoaus
[thepetitioner].. . .
[The petitioner's]reputationin quality managementis well-knownafter the
Hehasdemonstratedthathe is oneof thebestin thefield. . . . When
[thepetitioner]wasonly 24 yearsold,heleda projectteamto win theannualcontract
Page9
of more than 8 million This contractaccountedfor
80% of Moverall productionordersin China and was importantto the
strategiccooperationbetween . . . When [the petitioner]was 33
yearsold,heworkedasDirectorof Qualityin . in chargeof all aspectsof
QualityManagement,ManufacturingManagement,andSupplierManagement.Within
six months,he improvedthe major to successfullypass[]
FactoryQualificationAudits.
In a requestfor evidencedatedJanuary29, 2010, the directorstatedthat the petitionerhad not
providedsufficientinformationabouthis intendedemployment.Thedirectoralsorequestedevidence
to showthenationalscopeof thepetitioner'soccupation,andto demonstratethepetitioner'sinfluence
onhisfield.
In response,the petitionerstatedthat he is now "working asDirector of Productionat Appliance
Scientific,Inc.(ASI) in Dallas,TX in chargeof all theaspectsof Manufacturing,QualityandSupply
ChainManagementsfor CommercialOvenmanufacture."Thepetitionerstatedthat ASI's Ovation
Mini ovensare safeandenergyefficient,but he did not claim to be responsiblefor designingor
creatingthe oven'sparticularfeatures. Instead,he statedthat helpedto setup the productionand
qualityassurancesystemsto ensurethattheovensmeetthecompany'sspecifications.Thepetitioner
didnotexplainhowit is in thenationalinterestthathe,ratherthanadifferentqualifiedworker,bein
chargeof qualitycontrolfor theseovens,exceptto makethegeneralargumentthathe is morehighly
skilledat hisjob, andthereforewoulddelivermoresavingsandimprovementsthana lessqualified
workerwould do in the sameposition. Thepetitionerdid not explainhow his work wouldhavea
significantimpactoutsideof ASIanditsclients.
Thepetitionercitedrecenthighunemploymentfigures,andasserted:"thereareveryfew expertswho
knowthespecificmethodologiesandhavehands-onskills to saveandrevitalizeU.S.manufacturing
industry.I amoneof theexpertswhocanmakethishappen."
Counselarguedthat the petitioner'sjob is national in scopebecauseimproved manufacturing
processessave energy and money; protect worker safety; and createjobs, while producing higher-
qualityproductsfor consumersacrossthe country. To distinguishthe petitionerfrom othersin his
field, counseldisputedthat"quality andmanufacturingmanagementscanbe learnedfrom [a] book."
Counselassertedthatthepetitioner's"field isasecretivefieldwithlittle ornopublicationfor thelatest
Asianproductionmethods,"andthereforetheonly waythatUnitedStatescompaniescanlearnthose
methodsis by employingworkerswith experienceatAsianfactories.Counselstatedthat,by working
"with top tier companies. . . in Asia," thepetitionerhasgained"real andprovenexperiencethatothers
do not have." This line of reasoningimpliesthatanyqualitymanagerwho hasworkedfor a major
manufacturerin Asia shouldreceivethewaiver,asbeingpresumptivelysuperiorto a UnitedStates
worker. UnderMatter of New YorkStateDept. of Transportation,the alien's specific,individual
qualificationsarethekey factor;thereis no presumptionof superiority(or inferiority) basedon the
countryor countrieswherea givenalienhasworked. Furthermore,counseldid not explainhow the
petitioner'smethodsin a "secretivefield," in which employersclosely guard improvementsin
techniquein orderto preservecompetitiveadvantage,wouldpropagatebeyondasingleemployer.
Page10
Thepetitionerdid not submitanyobjective,documentaryevidenceto showthathis work hasbeen
especiallyimportantor influentialin thefield. Instead,thepetitionersubmittedmorewitnessletters,
alongwith counsel'sassertionthat"USCISshouldgivehigh value"to thoselettersbecause"[t]here
arenotmanyobjectiveauthoritiesonmanufacturinghistoryin theUnitedStates."
In mostcases,qualitycontrolis anafterthoughtrelatingto salesandcustomerservice..
. . However,[the petitioner]has changedthis concept. Insteadof merely quality
control,[thepetitioner]hasintertwinedthis with costcuttingandprofitability. In his
pastwork,usinghis methodandhis guidance,thecompaniesall seemedto be ableto
increasequality and reducecosts[,] gainedmarket shareand win more business
opportunitiesfrom customers.This is highly significantbecause[the petitioner]has
more influenceon the companythan almostany other department. And what is
influentialfor thecompanyiswhatisinfluentialfor thesector,andthereforetheU.S.
. . . [Most] . . . quality control expertswill only know how to apply the quality
standardsandto checkthespecifications.. . . In [thepetitioner's]case,whathecando
is thathecantell whento abideby thestandards,whento improvethemanufacturing
process,andwhento usealternativemethods.I do not believethatthereis anexact
methodologyto [thepetitioner's]work,but I know thatif I let [thepetitioner]do his
work,hecanbringbackbetterqualityproductsatalowercostandin theshortesttime.
. . . [Thepetitioner's]work is of majorbusinesssignificance. . . becausehehassaved
severalcompaniesby makingfailedproductsintosuccessfulones.
discussedseveralexamplesalreadydiscussedin previouswitnessletters,suchastheassertion
thatthepetitionersavedmillionsof dollars
did not explain how the petitioner'swork has had, or could have,a wider impacton
manufacturing in the United States. He acknowledgedthat some details from individual projects are
confidential,andthereforeunavailablefor wider implementation.He alsodeniedthatthepetitioner
employsany"exactmethodology"thatotherscouldlearnandimitate. The implicationseemsto be
thatthepetitionercouldeventuallyhaveamajorimpacton UnitedStatesmanufacturingthroughserial
employmentfor severaldifferentmanufacturers.Thereis no evidencethat the petitioner'scurrent
employmentfor ASI involvesauditsof othermanufacturingfacilities.
[Thepetitioner]auditedour factoryin Dongguancity, GuangdongProvince,Chinain
April of 2008.. . . Duringtheinitial audit,ourfactorydidnotmeettherequirementsfor
quality systemmanagementand operationsprocessmanagement. However, we
follow[ed] [thepetitioner's]recommendationsandthenourfactorypassedthestandard
requiredby withinonlytwomonths.. . .
Page11
[Thepetitioner]canimprovequalitywhile loweringcostin awaythatno international
standardor manualcando in reallife. Thereasonfor [thepetitioner's]uniquenessin
thisareais thathebalancesqualityandcostparticularlywell. Thisis notanability that
canbe learnedor gainedfrom readingbooksor evengarneredby applyingrigorous
quality standards.Insteadthis is a businesssensethat developsfrom practice,and
particularlyAsianmanufacturingpractice.
Onceagain,the abovewitnessdiscusseshow the petitionerhashelpedindividual employers,but has
notexplainedhow thepetitioner'swork hashad,or will have,nationalimpactbeyondtheindividual
companiesthatemployhim.
ThedirectordeniedthepetitiononJune29,2010. Thedirectoracknowledgedtheintrinsicmeritof the
petitioner'soccupation,butfoundthatthepetitionerhadnotshownnationalscope.Thedirectorfound
that"theprimarybenefitof hisemploymentis enjoyedby hisemployer."Thedirectoralsofoundthat
thepetitionerhadnot explainedwhy a waiverof thelaborcertificationrequirementwouldbe in the
nationalinterest. Thedirectornotedthatexceptionalability, i.e.,a degreeof expertisesignificantly
abovethatordinarilyencountered,is not sufficientgroundsfor thewaiver.
On appeal,counselstates:"petitionerhascreatedjob opportunities. . . for all individualsin theU.S.
This is becausethejobs thatarecreatedareopento all US workers,andworkersfrom anywherecan
applyfor thesejobs. . . . [A]lthoughthejob locationmaybelocal,thejob opportunityis nationalin
scope.Thiscanbe contrastedfrom a teacheror a chefbecausetheycannotcreateopportunitieson a
nationalscope."By counsel'slogic,achef'swork is nationalin scopebecausedinersfrom anywhere
can travel to the chef's restaurant. It is true that a job seekercan relocatein order to pursue
employment,but the resultingemploymentis not national in scope. Once employed,the workers
would presumablyresidewithin commutingdistanceof the new employer. Even if a manufacturer
staffedits entirefacility throughnationalratherthanlocalrecruitment,theeconomicanddemographic
effectsfrom the potentialrelocationof one factory's worth of workerswould not appearto be
significantatanationallevel.
Counselstatesthatthe"petitionerhashel[ped]multiple manufacturerscreateonemanufacturingplant
afteranother.USCISshouldnotfocusonjust oneplant." Counseldoesnotprovidearoughestimate
of thetotalnumberof factorieswherethepetitionerintendsto work in theUnitedStates.Counselhad
previously claimed that the petitioner had worked for six employersbetween 1999 and 2009.
Assumingthatthepetitionercontinuesto changejobs atthesamerate,hewouldwork for perhaps20
employersbefore reachingretirementage around 2040. The petitioner has not shown that this
hypothetical suite of employerswould representa significant swath of the United States'
manufacturingbase.Also,thelocalwork of anindividualdoesnotbecomenationalin scopesimply
by occurringin severaldifferentplacesovera numberof years. Any oneindividualpositionwould
still belocal,andthepetitionercanonlyhaveanactiverolein oneplaceatatime. If, for instance,the
petitionerleft ajob in Texasfor a newjob in Indiana,his ongoingimpactin Texaswouldceaseonce
hebeganworkingin Indiana.
Page12
Counselassertsthatthepetitionerwouldhavean"indirectimpact"becausehis employersarepartof
the nationaleconomy,and "createa supply chain that . . . benefitsthe entire field relatedto
manufacturingplants." While themanufacturingnetworkandits ancillary supportbusinessesare,in
the aggregate,nationalin scope,counselhasnot explainedhow the petitioner'swork at onesuch
factorywithinthesystemisnationalin scope.
Counselrepeatsthe assertionthat manymanufacturerswill keeptheir methodssecretfor business
reasons,but contendsthat "this knowledgewill surelyspreadout as employeeschangejobs and
petitionerchange[s]manufacturingplants." This speculativeclaimrelieson theassumptionthatthe
employersdesiresecrecy,but will take no steps(suchas non-disclosureagreements)to prevent
departingemployeesfrom sharingthosesecretswith competitors.
Thepetitionerhasnot identifiedanyfactorythathasadoptedhismethodseventhoughhehimselfdid
not work there. Therefore,the assertionthat the petitioner'stechniqueswill graduallyspreadis
nothingbut unsupportedconjecture.Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo not constituteevidence.
SeeMatterof Obaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534n.2(BIA 1988);Matterof Laureano,19I&N Dec.1,
3n.2(BIA 1983);MatterofRamirez-Sanchez,17I&N Dec.503,506(BIA 1980).
Fortheabovereasons,thepetitionerhasnotdemonstratedthathis intendedwork is nationalin scope.
TheAAO thereforeaffirmsthedirector'sfindingto thateffect.
In discussingthelackof evidenceto supportcounsel'sclaims,arelatedissuesurfaces.Witnesseshave
madevery specificclaims aboutthe pastresultsfrom the petitioner'swork, involving particular
productsandspecificcostfigures. Therecord,however,containsno objectivedocumentaryevidence
at all to supportanyof theseclaims,andno explanationfor its absence.Goingon recordwithout
supportingdocumentaryevidenceis notsufficientfor purposesof meetingtheburdenof proofin these
proceedings.Matterof Soffici,22I&N Dec.158,165(Comm'r1998)(citingMatterof TreasureCraft
of California,14I&N Dec.190(Reg'lComm'r1972)).
Counselagainquotesat lengthfrom previouslysubmittedwitnessletters. Theopinionsof expertsin
the field are not without weight and the AAO has consideredthem above. USCIS may, in its
discretion,useasadvisoryopinionsstatementssubmittedasexperttestimony. SeeMatter of Caron
International,19I&N Dec.791,795(Comm'r 1988). However,USCISis ultimatelyresponsiblefor
makingthe final determinationregardingan alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The
submissionof lettersfrom expertssupportingthe petition is not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility;
USCISmay,asthe AAO hasdoneabove,evaluatethe contentof thoselettersasto whetherthey
supportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at795. USCISmayevengivelessweightto anopinionthatis
notcorroborated,in accordwith otherinformationor is in anywayquestionable.Id. at795;seealso
MatterofSoffici,22I&N Dec.158,165(Comm'r1998)(citingMatterof TreasureCraftof California,
14I&N Dec.190(Reg'lComm'r1972)).
Thelettersconsideredaboveprimarily containunsupportedassertionsregardingthepetitioner'spast
work. Witnessesassertthatfew othersarecapableof the petitioner'slevel of accomplishment,but
provideno objectivedatato supporttheseclaims. Absentsupportingevidence,thelettersessentially
Page13
indicatethat,for reasonsdifficult to explainandwith no "exactmethodology,"thepetitionerassists
manufacturersin waysthatareconfidentialandthusnot subjectto disclosure.Thesecaveatsleave
little firm basisfor thewaiver.
Withrespectto laborcertification,counselassertsthatamanufacturer's"directorof qualityneedstobe
thebest,"or else"it is a matterof timebeforethemanufacturingis movedto Asia." Counseloffers
severalvariationson theargumentthatAsianmanufacturingtechniquesaresuperiorto UnitedStates
methods,andthe petitionerhasbeena successfuldirectorof quality for Asian manufacturers,so
thereforethe petitioner'semploymentin the United Stateswill preventthe otherwiseinevitable
migrationof UnitedStatesfactoriesto Asia. Therecorddoesnot identify anyUnitedStatesfactory
thatthepetitioner'seffortshavealreadysavedfrom closureor offshorerelocation. Instead,counsel
presentstheconjecturalclaimthatthepetitioner'sworkwill eventuallyproducesuchresults.
Thereis no disputethat quality control and soundmanagementpracticescan reducecostswhile
ensuringproductionof high-quality,competitiveproducts. The petitioner,however,hasnot shown
thathiseffortsin this areawill appreciablyaffectmorethanoneemployeratatime,or thathisefforts
havehadandwill continueto havea greaterimpactthanthoseof qualifiedUnitedStatesworkersin
the samefield. The broad-brushpresumptionthat Asian techniquesare superiorto United States
techniques,and that thereforeUnited Statesmanufacturingjobs are doomedunlessUnited States
manufacturersemployAsianqualitycontrolmanagers,is unsupportedanddoesnot createa blanket
waiverfor Asiansin thepetitioner'soccupation.
As is clearfrom a plain readingof the statute,it wasnot the intentof Congressthat everyperson
qualifiedto engagein aprofessionin theUnitedStatesshouldbeexemptfrom therequirementof ajob
offer basedon nationalinterest.Likewise,it doesnot appearto havebeentheintentof Congressto
grantnationalinterestwaiversonthebasisof theoverallimportanceof agivenprofession,ratherthan
on themeritsof the individualalien. On thebasisof theevidencesubmitted,the petitionerhasnot
establishedthata waiverof therequirementof anapprovedlaborcertificationwill be in thenational
interestof theUnitedStates.
The burdenof proof in theseproceedingsrestssolely with the petitioner. Section291 of the Act,
8 U.S.C.§ 1361. The petitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealis dismissed.