dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Quality Engineering

(b)(6)
DATE: 
OCT 1 0 2014 
fN RE: Petitioner : 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massac husetts Ave., N.W ., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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: 
fNSTRUCTIONS: 
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 law 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 1-2908) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.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, 
~~i~~:;trative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before us at the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b)(2) ofthe 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 seeks employment as a quality engineer. At the time he filed the petition, the petitioner had 
an offer of employment at North Carolina. 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. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a legal brief and supporting exhibits, most of them submitted 
previously. 
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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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, Pub. L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), 
states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (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. Id. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. Id. 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. Id. 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. Id. 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. Id. 
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 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. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on April 5, 2013. An 
accompanying introductory statement reads, in part: 
[The petitioner 's] eligibility for the National Interest Waiver classification is 
predicated on the clear statutory language of §203(b )(2) of the [Act], which states that 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
"visas should be made available to qualified immigrants 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." We firmly believe that [the petitioner's] skills and experience is [sic] of 
such obvious national interest. 
The introductory statement somewhat misquoted the statutory language. The complete wording of 
section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act reads as follows: 
IN GENERAL.-Visas shall be made available, in a number not to exceed 28.6 percent of 
such worldwide level, plus any visas not required for the classes specified in paragraph 
(1), 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. 
The complete language of the relevant section of the statute shows that an alien whose advanced 
degree or exceptional ability "will substantially benefit ... the United States" must also meet the job 
offer requirement, by showing that his or her "services ... are sought by an employer in the United 
States." The omission of this clause from the quoted passage does not establish or imply that "the 
clear statutory language" favors approval ofthe waiver. 
The introductory statement described the petitioner's qualifications: 
[The petitioner's] past, omwin!!. and nrosnecti_ve role as an innovative Quality 
Engineer specializing in and Kansei 
Engineering encompasses unique skills t at undoubtedly serve the national interest. 
... As a Quality Engineer, [the petitioner] analyzes data and product specifications to 
determine standards and establish quality and reliability objectives of finished 
products. Moreover, [the petitioner] is experienced in the implementation of effective 
corrective actions to minimize quality issues for advanced manufacturing companies . 
. . . In 2010, [the oetitionerl was awarded a Doctorate of Philosophy in Industrial 
Engineering from I in Wichita, Kansas .... 
In 2011, ] ... [,] an advanced materials science solutions 
provider[,] successfully petitioned for [the petitioner's] Hl-[B] non-immigrant 
worker visa. There, he used his expertise for the development and implementation of 
systems manufacturing. He was responsible for improving the quality management 
system through active interaction with sales and customers on customer quality 
issues, specification alignment and customer corrective actions. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Currently, [the petitioner] has a confirmed job offer with is one of 
the largest engineering companies in the world. provides power and automation 
technologies that enable utility and industry customers to improve their performance 
while lowering environmental impact. [The petitioner] has been offered a position as 
a Quality Engineer in the Power Products - Medium Voltage Department of m 
North Carolina .... 
[The petitioner's] eligibility for national interest waiver classification under 8 C.F.R. 
§202(b )(2)1 is premised on his demonstrated accomplishments as a quality engineer 
in his published, presented, reviewed, taught, and implemented works throughout his 
career. Specifically, his contributions toward the body of knowledge and 
implementation of principles of Kansei Engineering have earned him recognition in 
academia and among prestigious engineering firms in the United States .... 
The benefits of employment of [the petitioner] are national in scope. Through his 
unique aQQroach to Rough Set theory in Kansei engineering and 
[the petitioner] makes significant contributions toward improving the 
quality of products through human-centered design principles .... [The petitioner] 
has been a presenter, contributor, teacher, and panelist in the industry's most qualified 
conferences. . . . His scientific approach to Industrial Engineering is recognized as 
insightful and innovative, a foresight to a more productive and consumer friendly 
future for Industrial Engineering . 
. . . As a quality engineer, his enlightened psychological, human-centered, approach 
to engineering has wide-ranging beneficial impact. His contributions toward the 
"Detection and Prevention of Carbon Monoxide Exposure in General Aviation 
Aircrafts" project as well as presenting a new method for customer grouping using 
the QFD body of knowledge represent two developing aspects of the industry [to] 
which [the petitioner] has significantly contributed throughout his career. 
The petitioner documented his receipt of various academic scholarships. The introductory statement 
mentioned one of them, stating: "In 2010, [the etitioner] was ... awarded the 
from the ... in recognition of his outstanding contributions 
toward the body of knowledge." The record documents the petitioner's receipt of the student 
award, but does not establish its significance. The petitioner submitted copies of articles from 
publications about his receipt of the scholarship, but no evidence that the award attracted wider 
notice. 
The petitioner documented his job offer from _ to take effect April 29, 2013, several weeks after 
the petition's filing date. A copy of the job description reads, in part: 
1 There is no regulation designated 8 C.F.R. § 202(b)(2). The intended reference appears to be section 203(b)(2) of the 
Act. 
(b)(6)
Page 6 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The individual in this position is responsible for development and implementation of 
effective methods and procedures and the use of how to use the equipment properly to 
effectively respond to requirements for accuracy of products. The individual is 
responsible for ensuring procedures and documentation is [sic] in place to produce a 
product to meet quality and services specifications. 
Under limited direction, perform complex quality assurance assignments requiring 
diversified knowledge of engineering, manufacturing and quality assurance to cost 
effectively accomplish the organization's goals and objectives. Proactively seek and 
implement initiatives to improve operations and increase customer satisfaction. 
The record contains no evidence that the petitioner subsequently worked for although, 
beginning in May 2013, he held employment authorization that would have permitted him to do so. 
A submitted in September 2013 does not identify as a current or former 
employer. 
The petitioner submitted letters ' 
taught or worked with the petitioner. 
stated: 
' all of whom have 
executive director of the 
fThe petitioner began his study with me in 2002 when he attended the 
::ourse in Munich[,] 
Germany, in conjunction with his presentation 
at the J· ... [The petitioner's] work represents 
new extensions and integrations of statistical and mathematic theory in the fields of 
product development that are essential to the ongoing competitiveness of U.S. 
industries in a variety of fields including manufacturing, healthcare, and education. 
Two of the letters are from associate professors at in Iran, where the petitioner 
taught from 1998 to 2005. Dr.~ ostly discussed the petitioner ' s teaching and 
administrative duties at functions that the petitioner would not undertake while 
employed in industry rather than academia. Beyond academic functions, Dr. stated: 
As a successful faculty [member] and due to his great understanding and experience 
in the quality engineering specialty of customer oriented product development such as 
the local industry organizations requested him 
to hold many practical workshops particularly in his area of _ . his expertise. He 
also provided consultancy services in the same area to these industries. 
In research [the petitioner] is very competent. He was the head of the research team 
of two significant research projects: Feasibility Study o~ 
in Iran and Investigation of l Ali's contribution 
was recognized by experts as instrumental in the success of these projects. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
Dr. 
Dr. 
NON-PRE CEDENT DECISION 
provided no further details about the petitioner's research and consulting work. 
stated: 
[The petitioner] worked on a research project entitled "Feasibility study of electric 
vehicle production in Iran." ... [The petitioner] served as the head of the technical 
study group and contributed to the market , economical , and financial studies of the 
project. 
This project was instrumental in increasing the awareness of authorities as well as the 
engineers and other members of the domestic vehicle industry on the feasibility of 
vehicles that are environmentally friendly .... The role of [the petitioner], among 
other team members , was remarkable in achieving the project outcomes. 
Four of the letters are from current or former faculty members at 
his doctorate from ?.OOfi to ? 0 1 0 Profe ssor 
-' where the petitioner earned 
now rl e ~n o the College of 
Engineering at previously chaired Department of 
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering. He stated: 
Because of his strong technical background and qualifications , I recruited [the 
petitioner] to pursue his PhD in Industrial Engineering .... Since then, I have been in 
constant interaction with [the petitioner] in a number of ways . .. . I would rank him in 
the top 5% of the extensive number of students that I have worked with over the 
years . . . . The Six Sigma Black Belt certificate (SSBB) as well as the Certified 
Quality Engineering (CQE) certificate , both from the American Society of Quality 
(ASQ), are highly prestigious certificates that he has received while completing his 
PhD education .... A person with this level of expertise is certainly unique and an 
asset that many companies seek in their new employees in the area of quality .... 
One of the important projects of national significance to which [the etitioner] was a 
major contributor was the 
project , a four year project funded by the 
. . . . This was a very important project of 
natiOnal s1gmt1cance as 1 ts resuitt s J were to be used as directives to the general 
aviation community and to remedy design issues with small airplane[s] to improve 
their safety .. . . [The petitioner] was instrumental in its success. 
In collaboration with other graduate students , [the petitionerl used _his exnertise in 
data mining and statistical data analysis to examine the 
database to identify cases where CO was a contributor to 
accidents and to better understand the nature of the problem . The result of this 
analysis together with the evaluation of existing CO detection technology and two 
years of field testing enabled us to make solid recommendations to the to 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
improve safety in general aviation aircraft. These recommendations are instrumental 
in the creation of advisory circulars by the for manufacturers and maintenance 
personnel of general aviation aircraft to improve their processes and products. 
Prof, letter does not include sufficient details regarding the nature or extent of the 
petitioner 's role in the project, to establish whether the petitioner 's involvement included 
creative input or was limited to data processing. The petitioner 's initial submission included no 
evidence from the: to show that the adopted the recommendations , or that the petitioner is 
a credited author of any resulting report. 
Professor Prof. successor as department chair, offered his "highest 
recommendation" but provided no details about the petitioner's work, stating: "[the petitioner's] 
sophisticated work over the last fifteen years on and Kansei Engineering is marked by a unique 
international and multicultural perspective , chronicling the customer usability and feedback 
approach to engineering. " 
Dr. , coordinator of Human Factors Program and an associate professor 
of psychology, stated: 
I first met [the petitioner] when he asked me to serve on his dissertation committee. 
Intrigued by the measurement of 'user experience,' [the petitioner] and I met 
numerous times to discuss the psychology of understanding the relationship between 
user affect, performance, and product usability. . . . [The petitioner] showed that 
certain classes of users had similar perceptions of websites and from this he was able 
to generate website design guidelines for each class. This research is important 
because it established a method for performing perception-based customer 
classification (rather than function-based customer segmentation) and helped to 
provide a link between market research and product development. His approach was 
innovative and one that I had not seen in the HCI literature before. His integration of 
into product development appears promising in 
its potential to help industry be more productive and have more satisfied customers. 
Dr. added that "[t]he importance of [the petitioner 's] work has been recognized nationally 
and internationally with several awards," but the awards she identified were academic scholarships, 
intended to finance the petitioner's graduate studies. Dr. did not identify any awards that 
the petitioner received that were not contingent on his student status. Furthermore, awards and other 
recognition can form part of a claim of exceptional ability under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), but 
exceptional ability alone does not warrant approval of the national interest waiver. Without 
evidence of their significance, the awards do not demonstrate or imply eligibility for the waiver. 
Professor provided the most information about the petitioner 's doctoral research: 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The topic of his dissertation research with me involved the application of rough set 
theory to the development of design rules for products based upon the subjective 
impressions of potential users. These subjective impressions have been considered in 
other applications as "Kansei" but have not (been] integrated in the design of 
products that have multiple users. 
During his four years of dissertation research, he researched applications of 
qualitative methods for reasoning under uncertainty and/or with imperfect 
information/knowledge to the design and development of services and consumer 
products, focusing on customers/users ' requirements and needs, functional or psycho­
social in nature. He applied a powerful mathematical knowledge discovery approach 
called Rough Set Theory in Kansei engineering (A tool to map customer 's feeling to 
product design), especially when there is ambiguity in user performance experience 
data. The developed approach identified natural product user classifications and then 
generated design rules for each class .. . . 
The rules were verified and validated by design experts and mathematical techniques 
in terms oftheir efficiency and accuracy. 
quality manager for described the petitioner's 
work at that company: 
[The petitioner] was good in Measurement System Analysis , Statistical Process 
Control, Cpk Analysis and working on the shop floor regarding audits, QC issues 
troubleshooting , root cause analysis and preparing Corrective Action Report[s]. He 
managed the New Product Development program . . . efficiently and effectively .. . . 
For instance, regarding new products' drawings, he took [a] proactive approach to 
follow up on the customers' feedback to operations and engineering, while he 
diligently worked with multiple individuals throughout the organization to get and 
implement their feedbacks in manufacturing and control plans in order to ensure the 
products met the customer requirements. 
Mr. praised the quality of the petitioner's work for but did not indicate that the 
benefit from the petitioner's work there extended beyond the company and its customers. The 
petitioner held H-lB status permitting him to work for until November 2014, but Mr. 
stated that the company terminated his employment in January 2013 "[d]ue to business 
down time and lack of work." 
The petitioner also submitted copies of his articles and conference papers, but he did not submit 
documentary evidence (such as citation records) to establish the industry's reception of his work. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on July 5, 2013. The director acknowledged the 
petitioner's submission of "memberships and academic awards, letters from peers and colleagues 
and evidence of publications," but stated that "[ a]dditional evidence is requested" to establish the 
petitioner's impact and influence on his field. 
The petitioner's response included a statement claiming that his previously "submitted evidence 
clearly established his past record as a Quality Engineer with a distinctly innovative and 
multicultural perspective, which has not gone unnoticed by industry leaders, as evidenced by his 
prestigious awards as well as presentations and peer reviews at world-renowned conferences." The 
statement also includes the following passage: 
[The petitioner 's] contributions toward the body of knowledge and 
implementation of principles of Kansei Engineering have earned him recognition in 
academia and among prestigious engineering firms in the United States. He 
developed a unique approach called 
. . . 
a two-stage customer perception-based product development approac 
in his dissertation. This approach incorporates customer feedback data into the 
product development process. was implemented in a website design project 
by the psychology department of . in 2010. Therefore, we 
believe that the foregoing documentation establishes unequivocally that the national 
interest would be adversely affected if US employers were deprived of the services of 
[the petitioner] by making the position available to U.S. workers. 
The record does not support the claim that the petitioner "developed ... 
_ . ' The petitioner submitted an excerpt from his 201 0 doctoral dissertation, in which he 
described but did not claim to be the first to apply rough set analysis to Kansei engineering. 
Because the petitioner did not submit the complete dissertation, the record does not show whether 
the petitioner made such a claim later in the paper, or cited earlier published work by others 
discussing the concept. 
Also, even if the petitioner did create its existence is not evidence of its influence. The 
petitioner would still have to establish that other quality engineers have adopted resulting in 
demonstrable changes to the field. By statute, possession of an advanced degree does not 
automatically exempt the petitioner from the job offer requirement, and therefore the petitioner's 
doctoral dissertation is not, on its face, evidence of eligibility for the waiver. The claimed adoption 
of "by the psychology department of ' where the petitioner wrote 
the dissertation, is not evidence of wider influence. 
The petitioner submitted copies of three published articles and one thesis containing independent 
citations to the petitioner's presented work, with three articles citing a 2008 presentation, and the 
fourth citing a presentation from 2009. The petitioner also submitted printouts showing monthly 
views of various papers on web site. The petitioner provided no evidence to show that his 
papers are heavily cited, or widely read, compared to the writings of others in his specialty. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 11 
The RFE response listed nine "Awards and Accolades," seven of which date from the petitioner's 
graduate studies, while an eighth is a "Graduate Fellowship" that the petitioner received shortly 
afterward. The ninth listed exhibit is a new job offer, and will be discussed further below. 
Five of the "Awards and Accolades" are scholarships, grants, or other awards from entities within 
(either academic departments or local chapters of organizations). By nature, these internal 
honors do not reflect wider recognition. 
Included among the items that the petitioner listed as "Awards and Accolades" are varwus 
certifications from the American Society for Quality and the 
which the petitioner earned by passing a written examination and meeting certain experience 
requirements or by attending workshops. The record does not show that these certifications amount 
to "awards" or "accolades." 
The remaining two items identified as "Awards and Accolades" are job offers. One exhibit so 
identified is a set of job offer letters for short-term, part-time appointments as a graduate research 
assistant at in conjunction with the petitioner's then-ongoing graduate studies. The other job 
offer is for a position as a quality engineer at Connecticut. 
The job offer letter is dated September 9, 2013, and the petitioner accepted the offer on September 
14, 2013, with a tentative start date of September 30, 2013. This job offer shows that a prospective 
employer considered the petitioner to be sufficiently qualified for a particular opening, but the record 
does not show how this is an "award" or "accolade." 
Although the petitioner accepted job offers from there is no evidence that 
he actually worked for either employer. As the petitioner relies on these job offers as evidence of 
how he will contribute to the field, the fact that he did not work for either company raises questions 
as to his ability to make those contributions. 
The petitioner's RFE response included letters from five individuals, four of whom had previously 
provided letters with the initial submission . The exception is ' chief executive officer of 
_ who stated that the petitioner "has an innovative approach to Quality 
Engineering that is a result of a unique perspective that is hard to find amongst U.S. employees." Mr. 
did not elaborate on this point. 
writing as executive director of the stated: 
[The petitioner] has been applying and related methods in unique applications 
and approaches that can benefit US industry and competitiveness. Among these are 
new ways to segment markets and customers based on behavioral and attitudinal 
characteristics 
learned from customer choice modeling for both functional and 
emotional benefits. Work presented by [the petitioner] has been widely disseminated 
in the community and followed by senior _ practitioners. I believe this work 
will continue to have a great impact on US companies using as it provides ways 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
to identify new market opportunities for US-made products, service, and even 
software . 
. 
. . His contributions are varied an any, but I am most familiar with his work 
presented at the 201 0 on market segmentation using . . . very 
advanced methods that require detailed statistical analyses of subjective consumer 
responses in order to model and predict consumer behavior. 
Mr. did not identify the "senior Jractitioners" said to use the petitioner's work, or 
otherwise identify instances of adoption of the petitioner's methods in the years following his 2010 
conference presentation. 
Prof. 
[The petitioner] led a student research team to investigate the source of carbon 
monoxide in general aviation (GA) aircrafts and to develop methods to detect and 
prevent carbon monoxide exposure .... [The petitioner's] role in this project was 
truly instrumental as the team utilized his data mining skills ... to analyze [a] large 
amount of data from the databases of the to determine the major causes of 
incidents. The end result of this analysis was the determination of most effective DO 
detection technology as well as best locations in the cockpit for its placement. ... 
Ultimately, the team's final report was submitted to the The research was 
published as an October 2009 technical report, 
. 
. . Furthermore, the 
issued a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin to advise owners/operators of 
general aviation aircraft on the proper maintenance of exhaust systems and use of CO 
detectors. 
The petitioner submitted evidence to show the outcome of the project, such as copies of 
Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins regarding the CO research, and several online third­
party articles describing the report (but not a copy of the report itself, which might identify 
authors and key contributors). An article from a publication stated: 
[S]even undergraduate and graduate students had the opportunity to ... !lain 
invaluable hands-on research experience. First, they reviewed the 
databases and identified cases where CO was a 
contributor to accidents .... 
The team went on to review and document a wide range of portable CO detectors in 
the marketplace that may be suitable for use in a small-engine plane. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
The article quoted the petitioner as saying: "The project helped me learn, practice, develop and 
sharpen my research skills. I learned how to gather real-world data in the field and get familiar with 
the difficulty, complexity , and challenge of such a task." A certificate reproduced in the record 
shows that the petitioner and two colleagues shared the for 
at 2008 ngineering Open House. 
The evidence does not show that the petitioner's involvement significantly affected the outcome of 
the research, or that the report is largely a reflection of the petitioner's work. 
Dr. in her second letter, asserted that the petitioner's "approach allowed him to identify 
product characteristics that were related to different levels of satisfaction by different segments of 
users," which "is an alternative to the current approach of gathering market data to assess 
satisfaction." Dr. _ did not show the extent, if any, to which the field has embraced the 
petitioner 's alternative approach. 
Prof. stated: 
Until [the petitioner's] recent work, the standard approach to segmenting markets 
based upon customers' subjective perceptions [has] been trough [sic] Semantic 
Differentials. Semantic Differential is based upon the statistical clustering of rating 
scales. In comparison , Rough Set Theory is based on set theory and identifies "rough 
sets" through crisp upper and lower bound sets. These allow the assessment of 
alternative designs in a way that is not preconditioned on some arbitrary classification 
of what a class of customers' [sic] needs. 
Prof. implied that, as a result of the petitioner 's work, Semantic Differentials are no longer 
"the standard approach to segmenting markets." The record does not show this to be the · case. 
Rather, Prof offered his impression that the "standard approach" will change in the future: 
"My sense is that there is a coming revolution in our approach to addressing global markets in a way 
that is both efficient and effective." 
The director 
denied the petition on October 28, 2013, stating that the petitioner had met the first two 
prongs of the NYSDOT national interest test, relating to intrinsic merit and national scope, but that 
the petitioner had not established that his work has influenced the field as a whole. The director 
described and discussed the petitioner's evidence, and concluded that the materials do not show that 
the petitioner has served or will serve the national interest to a greater extent than others qualified to 
work in his field. The director found that the writers of the letters submitted in support of the 
petition "praise the beneficiary 's work and indicate generally that it has promising possibilities; they 
do not indicate that the beneficiary's contributions have enjoyed widespread implementation in the 
field." 
The petitioner 's appellate brief cites unpublished AAO decisions giving significant weight to third­
party letters. The petitioner submits no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
comparable to those in the unpublished decisions. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC§JON 
Page 14 
precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. According to printouts submitted on appeal, the 
cited appellate decisions mentioned that the letters were from "independent witnesses." In the 
present case, the writers are the petitioner's professors, employers, and collaborators. 
In one of the cited decisions, we determined that the lack of citations was not detrimental to the 
benefit requested because "the petitioner's specialty is very much an applied science rather than a 
theoretical one, and therefore it is appropriate to judge the extent to which other engineers have 
applied the petitioner's findings in their work." This general assertion applies in this case, but it 
remains the petitioner's responsibility to establish that others have applied his work. 
The brief asserts that the letters contained several references to the influence of the petitioner's work, 
referring, for instance, to the report and to a paper that the petitioner presented at a symposium 
in 2010. The record does not contain objective documentation to corroborate claims about the 
influence the petitioner's work has had on the field. The opinions of experts in the field are not 
without weight and have received consideration above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as 
advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 
19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the 
final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of 
letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as 
above, evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. USCIS 
may even give less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or 
is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see also Matter ofV-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 
2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also 
Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'] Comm'r 1972)). 
The petitioner's 
references at can provide their perspectives on the significance of the petitioner's 
work, but they cannot directly attest to the influence of that work outside of Implying, as Prof. 
did, that the petitioner's work has replaced the previous "standard approach" does not establish 
that this is, in fact, the case. The letters have received due consideration, but they cannot serve as their 
own corroboration. 
The brief notes that there have been "four citations to two of the Beneficiary's published papers," 
and "that the Beneficiary's publications have been downloaded 2,473 times as of the date of this 
brief." The petitioner submits no evidence that these citation and download rates, or the ratio of 
citations to downloads, are unusually high in his field. The figures, taken alone, are not evidence of 
their own significance. 
Also, the petitioner's published and presented work coincides with his graduate studies. The record 
does not show that the petitioner has continued to engage in such activities. If, in the future, he will 
not disseminate findings in this manner, then his past activities in that vein cannot justify approving 
the waiver. The benefit to the United States must be prospective. If the petitioner's future work will 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
focus on improving his employer's products in order to help that employer compete against its rivals, 
including other United States companies , then there is no readily evident basis for granting the 
watver. 
The petitioner has not established a past record of 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, 
22 I&N Dec. 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the 
field of endeavor." !d. 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 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. 
We will dismiss the appeal 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 ofOtiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.