sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Chemistry

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W.. Rm. A3042 
Washington. DC 20529 
US. Citizenship 
and Irnmigration 
FILE: LIN 03 239 53181 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: 
i ,a (! ; <;aj~: 
a - 
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. $ 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
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. 
\J 
+&&bert P. Wiemann, Director 
Administrative Appeals Office 
LIN03 239 53181 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Nebraska Service 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be sustained and the 
petition will be approved. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability. The petitioner seeks employment as a research associate 
at the University of Iowa. 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 had 
not established that an exemption fkom 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 that: 
(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. 
We note that the petitioner seeks classification as an alien of exceptional ability. The petitioner holds a 
doctorate in physical and analytical chemistry from the University of Southern California (USC), and his 
occupation qualifies as a profession under the regulatory definition offered at 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(k)(2). Thus, 
quite apart from the petitioner's claim of exceptional ability, the petitioner readily qualifies as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. Therefore, there is no dispute that the petitioner qualifies for the 
immigrant classification sought; additional consideration of the criteria for an alien of exceptional ability 
would add nothing of substance to this decision. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has 
established that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress did 
not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the Judiciary merely noted in its 
report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by increasing the number and proportion 
of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 
lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), published 
at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 19911, states: 
LIN 03 239 53181 
Page 3 
The Service [now Citizenship and Immigration Services] believes it appropriate to leave the 
application of ths test as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien seelang to meet the 
[national interest] standard must make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the 
"prospective national benefit" [required of aliens seelung 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. 
Mattev of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comrn. 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 
beneM will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seelung 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 "prospective" is used here to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the enhy of an alien with no demonstrable prior achievements, 
and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculatwe. 
The petitioner states: "I have established an international reputation for exceptional ability in Heterogeneous 
Catalysis. . . . I am a superior researcher who will advance the national interest." 
The petitioner submits several witness letters. In a copy of a letter dated March 22, 2002 (over 17 months 
before the petition's August 2003 filing date), Professor - 
I am [writing this letter] in my capacity as [the petitioner's] supervisor. I have worked with 
[the petitioner] essentially every day for the last six years. 
[The petitioner] was initially my graduate student at Texas A&M University, and he came 
with me when I accepted my present position at USC. He remains in my laboratory as an 
essential member of my research team. . . . He has published a very large number of 
outstanding papers in very prestigious chemical journals. These papers are very highly cited 
and will be increasingly cited in the future. [The petitioner's] work on methanol-to-olefin 
catalysis is helping form the basis of a very large new component of the US petrochemical 
industry. 
The petitioner documents his co-authorship of 23 published articles, all but two of which were collaborations 
with Prof. Haw. The petitioner initially indicated that these articles have been cited an aggregate total of 110 
times in 73 articles. 
The petitioner submits copies of three pieces of varying length from Clzemical & Engineering News 
discussing catalytic chemistry. The articles only briefly mention the petitioner, but we note that one article, 
presented as the top story in the April 22, 2002 issue, focuses on an article of which the petitioner was the 
lead author. The news story indicates that the article is "sure to spark controversy in catalysis circles." This 
corroborates the claim that the study itself, if not the petitionerper se, attracted attention within the field. 
LIN 03 239 53181 
Page 4 
a consultant to USC's Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute and a former senior scientist 
at Mobil Technology Company, states: 
[The petitioner] is one of the finest of the younger generation of magnetic resonance 
spectroscopists to come along in recent years. His insightful studies of zeolite chemistry 
-spectroscopic techniques, which he helped create as a member 
group, is at the cutting edge of the science, and provides an 
unprecedented view of heterogeneous catalysis at the molecular level. 
~rofessor- Prakash of USC, scientific co-director of the Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute, 
states: 
[The petitioner] has . . . pioneered techniques to study reactive and short lived intermediates 
using solid state NMR [nuclear magnetic resonance] techniques. His work has the potential 
to solve some of the fossil he1 crisis that the US faces today. . . . 
I am absolutely sure that [the petitioner's] R&D contributions to methanol to higher 
hydrocarbons will continue to make unprecedented and significant advances in the 
fundamental knowledge of the field. . . . His innovative research is substantially contributing 
to the field as well as resulting in significant benefits to the United States. 
~rofessor of Northwestern University states that the pet~t~oner "collaborated wlth my group on a 
research project which enabled us, for the first time, to observe a stable carbenlum ion m zeollte pores wlth 
Raman Spectroscopy." Prof. Stair asserts: 
[The petitioner] has done outstanding work to study the methanol to olefins (MTO) 
conversion chemistry. MTO conversion is both economically and technologically very 
important for the U.S. because of its impact on the chemical industry, especially the polymer 
industry. . . . MTO technology has been investigated by many research groups all over the 
world during the last twenty years to understand the mechanism of MTO and to improve the 
yield of light olefins, especially ethylene. [The petitioner's] work is at the frontier of this 
research field. His findings strongly support a co called "hydrocarbon pool" mechanism. 
The above witnesses have collaborated directly with the petitioner. Other witnesses, however indicate that 
the petitioner's reputation has extended beyond his circle of collaborators. ~rofesso-f the 
University of Stuttgart, who describes himself as "one of the world's leading authorities in chemistry," states: 
I am familiar with [the petitioner's] research because my research group at the University of 
Stuttgart has also focused on heterogeneous catalysis and methanol conversion, an area in 
which he has conducted outstanding research. I am well aware of the remarkable nature of 
his studies and routinely analyze them as they appear in journals with an international 
circulation. . . . In many of our own published papers, [the petitioner's] papers were cited 
because his findings are considered seminal in our field of study. . . . 
[The petitioner's] work has been so widely acknowledged as groundbreaking because it has 
been instrumental in providing a better understanding of the use of catalysts in fossil fuel 
manufacture and transforming the petrochemical industry. . . . His reputation as a leader in 
this vital research area is unmatched. 
LIN 03 239 53181 
Page 5 
Professor of North Carolina State University states "I repeatedly find myself scouting the 
literature for the latest results from [the petitioner's] research efforts. While in some cases I have discovered 
that ithe ~etitioner'sl research has corroborated our bwn efforts. more often I find com~letelv new discoveries L 1 
that push us in new iirections." ~r.f ~a~ai's Council for scienceand 'fechnology Policy 
affirms that the petitioner's work is distinguished by the "attention that it has received from the international 
community and the impact that it has had on the scientific community's basic understanding of MTH 
[methanol to hydrocarbon conversion chemistry] ." 
The director issued a request for evidence, stating that the petitioner has established the importance of his 
field of endeavor, but not that it would serve the national interest to waive the job offer requirement that 
normally applies to the classification sought. The director acknowledged the articles fiom Chernical & 
Engineering News, but noted that these articles did not single out the petitioner or his individual work. The 
director stated that statements from individuals outside of the petitioner's circle of collaborators and mentors 
would be particularly valuable. 
The director also requested information of questionable relevance, for example requiring the petitioner to 
"[plrovide documentation that demonstrates that the University of Iowa is recomized as the most advanced 
and productive MTH and heterogeneous catalysis research facility in the United States or the world" 
(director's emphasis). Such evidence would not be dispositive, because an alien does not automatically 
qualify for a waiver by working at a top laboratory, and the waiver is not limited to researchers at the one top 
research facility in a given field or specialty. Such a standard is far too restrictive, and can easily lead to 
confusion as there exists no one single standard by which laboratories could be thus ranked. 
In response to the director's notice, the petitioner has submitted additional letters and documentation. 
Professo f Texas A&M University states "I know of [the petitioner] primarily 
from his publications," although the petitioner had previously studied at Texas A&M University. Prof. 
states that the petitioner's "publications reflect his exceptional technical skills and represent a major 
contribution to our understanding of the mechanisms of zeolite catalyzed chemical reactions." He concludes 
that the petitioner's "past and present research is evidence that he will continue to influence the field of 
catalysis research to a greater extent than most of his peers." 
Professor of the University of Oslo states "I have followed [the petitioner's] publications on the 
MTH chemistry for etitioner] is a talented scientist with proven outstanding research 
accomplishments." Dr. of the Environmental Protection Agency's National Center for 
Environmental Research states that the petitioner "is pursuing a practical goal of a 'green' nanotechnology 
that applies this fast-developing technology for a cleaner environment. . . . [The petitioner] has made rapid 
progress for the program in a short time." 
A new citation listing, attributed to the Institute for Scientific Information, indicates 123 citations of the 
petitioner's work. 
The director denied the petition, stating that the evidence establishes that the petitioner is a competent and 
respected scientist, but not that he stands out to an extent that would justify a special waiver of the job offer 
requirement that normally attaches to the classification sought. 
The most recent citation information, provided on appeal, shows 160 citations of 22 of the petitioner's 
articles, demonstrating the petitioner's continuing, and arguably growing, influence in the field. Witnesses 
LIN 03 239 53181 
Page 6 
from several different countries attest to the petitioner's international reputation in his field, and many 
witnesses specifically assert that they have never met the petitioner and know of him only through his 
published work. This is prima facie evidence of a reputation that extends beyond the petitioner's immediate 
circle of professors, employers and collaborators. The director does not appear to have given sufficient 
consideration to this facet of the record, i.e., that independent, international witnesses agree that the petitioner 
has been a major contributor to important, newsworthy, and heavily-cited research within his particular 
specialty. 
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 field of research, rather than on the merits of the individual alien. That being said, the 
above testimony, and further testimony in the record, establishes that the scientific community recognizes the 
significance of this petitioner's research rather than simply the general area of research. The benefit of retaining 
ths alien's services outweighs the national interest that is inherent in the labor certification process. Therefore, 
on the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has 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. § 1361. 
The petitioner has sustained that burden. Accordingly, the decision of the director denylng the petition will be 
withdrawn and the petition will be approved. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.