sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Biomedical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-S-L-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 24, 2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a biomedical engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
normally attached to this immigrant classification. See § 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition and affirmed his decision on motion. The 
Director found that the Petitioner had not established that a waiver of a job offer would be in the 
national interest. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner argues that he satisfies the 
national interest waiver requirements and that the Director's decision contains multiple errors of law 
and fact. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences arts or business. Because this classification normally requires that 
the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish 
that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability.-
c__ _______________ _ 
Matter of M-S-L-
(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 ~ervices in the sciences, arts, 
professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... the Attorney General1 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. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national 
interest by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the 
United States economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. 
Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT), set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a 
request for a national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must demonstrate that he or she seeks 
employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. ld. at 217. Next, a petitioner must show that 
the proposed benefit will be national in scope. !d.· Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must 
establish that he or she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an 
available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, a petitioner's assurance 
that he or she will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to establish prospective 
national benefit. !d. at 219. Rather, a petitioner must justify projections of future benefit to the 
national interest by establishing a history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of 
influence on the field as a whole. Id. at 219, n.6. 
1 Pursuant to section 1517 ofthe Homeland Security Act of2002 ("HSA"), Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135,2311 
(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2012)), any reference to the Attorney General in a provision of the Act describing functions 
that were transferred from the Attorney General or other Department of Justice official to the Department of Homeland 
Security by the HSA "shall be deemed to refer to the Secretary" of Homeland Security. See also 6 U.S.C. § 542 note 
(2012); 8 U.S.C. § 1551 note (2012). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-S-L-
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner received a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from ·at 
in 2014. Accordingly, 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 according to the three­
pronged analysis set forth in NYSDOT. 
On appeal, the Petitoner states that he had not yet responded to the Director's request for evidence 
(RFE) at the time the denial decision was issued. In addition, the Petitioner indicates that both of the 
Director's decisions discussed evidence submitted in response to the RFE that was unrelated to his 
petition. Our review of the record supports the Petitioner's contention that the Director's decisions 
mentioned certain documentation that was not relevant to this petition. For example, both decsions 
incorrectly mentioned an invitation extended to the Petitioner to publish a video-article on his research 
methods for This evidence relates to a RFE response from a 
different petition that was erroneously placed in this record. 
A. Substantial Intrinsic Merit 
As a scientist at a biotechnology company, the Petitioner conducts research to help 
efficiently produce pharmaceuticals. We find that this research is in an area of substantial intrinsic 
merit because it contributes to improving U.S. healthcare resources. The record included published 
articles, letters of support, and online information about product development 
showing the meritorious nature of the Petitioner's biotechnology research. Therefore, he meets the 
first prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis. 
B. National in Scope 
The Petitioner provided evidence indicating that the proposed benefit of his biomedical engineering 
research has national and international implications, as the results from his work are disseminated to 
others in the field through conferences and journals. Accordingly, the Petitioner meets the second 
prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis. 
C. Serving the National Interest 
It remains, then, to determine whether the Petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater 
extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner's impact and influence on his field did not satisfy the third prong of the 
NYSDOT national interest analysis. 
The Petitioner seeks to continue his research in the biomedical engineering field. He provided letters 
' ' 
of support from experts in the field discussing his research findings and how his work has influenced 
the field. For example, associate professor of at 
3 
/ 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-S-L-
explained that the Petitioner's work "has significantly advanced the .field of 
("test tube" blood vessels). Specifically, noted 
that the Petitioner developed a method for the covalent immobilization of 
into fibrin hydrogels and that his "process resulted in that 
exhibited extended pathway activation as well as a surprising degree of contraction and 
more resilient mechanical properties." 
chair of the Department of at the 
indicated that the Petitioner devised "a method for uniformly immobilizing 
on the scaffold during the manufacturing process in order to address the problems 
caused by the diffusion limitation." In addition, stated that the Petitioner's technique 
improves "the mechanical properties and the vascular reactivity of the is useful for "in vivo 
implantation of ' and "can be applied to other SMC (smooth muscle cell)-containing 
tissues, with even broader impl,ications for regenerative medicine." 
a research fellow at and co-leader of the company's 
applied and investigative metabolomics matrix team, noted that the Petitioner has "produced seminal 
work that has impacted multiple disciplines" of chemical and biological engineering, including "a 
number of novel contributions" in the development of further explained: 
[The Petitioner] designed and built a bioreactor that delivers cyclic mechanical force 
to the tissue as it is forming in a way that replicates the body's behavior. By 
combining the growth factor immobilization technique with this pulsation bioreactor, 
synthetic blood vessels are created in culture with uniform distribution of cells and 
crucial proteins .... 
an assistant professor in the Department of at 
the discussed the Petitioner's work to develop a lentiviral arrays technique 
for efficient monitoring of gene and pathway activation during 
differentiation. stated that the Petitioner's work has allowed scientists "to recognize 
differences in the kinetics of pathway activation between lines " and has shown that the 
Lentiviral Arrays technique "is a tool for boosting scientific comprehension of stem cell fate 
specification as well as pathway regulation and drug discovery." 
associate dean of the College of Pharmacy at 
indicated that his research team "adopted a peptide immobilization technique implemented by [the 
Petitioner] . 
. . . Based on our analysis of this new scaffold, we were able to obtain almost a 400% 
increase in the efficacy of our system when compared to just a fibrin gel method." 
With respect to the Petitioner's development of bioprocess engineering methods for absorbing 
professor of civil and environmental 
engineering at the stated: "[The Petitioner] developed a 
in which the centrifugal force of the system forces stickier absorbents to pass 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-S-L-
through the with greater efficiency." Furthermore, noted that the Petitioner's 
innovation "increased the mass transfer efficiency of volatile compounds by and has been 
implemented by others in the field. 
In addition, professor of chemical engineering at 
indicated that the Petitioner found that a glycerol-water solution in a "effectively captures 
without flooding the and "is nearly 200 more times efficient than when using a 
cpnventional packed further stated that the Petitioner's work "has significance on 
future research," as his findings have been frequently cited by other scientists and have "led to 
other studies and research." 
The record included documentation of multiple research articles that the Petitioner has written or co­
written, and evidence demonstrating that his published work has been frequently cited by 
independent researchers. A substantial number of favorable independent citations for an article is an 
indication that other researchers are familiar with the work and may have been influenced by it. 
According to citation indices provided by the Petitioner, his research articles have 
garnered over 50 citations by others in the field. For example, the Petitioner's article entitled 
Ill 
entitled 
was cited to 25 times. In addition, the Petitioner's article 
Ill 
has been cited to 16 times. 
The submitted documentation, including reference letters and the frequent citation of the Petitioner's 
work by other researchers, is sufficient to demonstrate that his work has had a degree of influence on 
his field. The record establishes the significance of this Petitioner's research, as opposed to the general 
area of research, and identifies specific benefits attributable to his work that have influenced the field as 
a whole. We therefore find that the Petitioner's past record of achievement justifies a projection that 
he will serve the national interest to a significantly greater degree than would an available U.S. 
worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As discussed above, the record demonstrates that the benefit of retaining this petitioner's services 
outweighs the national interest that is inherent in the labor certification process. Therefore, on the basis 
of the evidence s4bmitted, the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, 
and thus of a labor certification, will be in the national interest of the United States. 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the imll).igration 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 met that burden. 
5 
Matter of M-S-L-
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of M-S-L-, ID# 85892 (AAO Oct. 24, 20 16) 
6