sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Computational Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF Y-Y-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals· Office 
DATE: MAR. 11, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a computational engineering researcher, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b )(2), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). In addition, the Petitioner seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is normally attached to this classification. See § 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). This discretionary waiver allows U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) to provide an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, 
when doing so serves the national interest. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner 
established his eligibility as an advanced degree professional, but did not establish that a waiver of the 
job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director placed 
undue emphasis on his citation history in analyzing his eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
He submits a brief and copies of documents already in the record. 
Upon de novo review, we will sustain the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate his or her 
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. -
Matter of Y-Y-
(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) National interest waiver. ... 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. 
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. !d. 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. !d. 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 Y- Y-
II. ANALYSIS 
In addition to finding that the Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional, the Director 
determined that his proposed work as a computational engineering researcher has substantial 
intrinsic merit and that the benefits of such work are national in scope. The only finding at issue in 
this matter is whether the Petitioner established sufficient influence on his field to meet the third 
prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis. 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on April 18, 2014, at 
which time he was working as a research associate at In an 
introductory letter, the Petitioner indicated that his research focuses on developing and implementing 
complex computer codes to simulate the properties and interactions of fluids and solid state matter. 
He asserted that his original contributions "have significantly advanced and influenced the field of 
computational engineering science," and he submitted letters from colleagues and independent 
professionals attesting to the importance of his research. 
The Petitioner indicated that one of his contributions to computational engineering was his 
development of a novel method for simulating the molecular dynamic behaviors of carbon nanotubes 
(CNTs), which are an important component of nanotechnology. A letter from 
. professor at the stated that the Petitioner's "reduced-order 
general continuum method" saves computational time and cost compared with other reduced-order 
continuum methods, and yields highly accurate results. He attested that this method "greatly 
advanced past longstanding barriers" to efficiently investigating CNTs, and has had a significant 
impact on the nanoelectromechanical systems industry, which creates nanoscale devices with a wide 
variety of potential applications. In another letter, a former guest editor for 
the stated that the Petitioner's method represents a 
"breakthrough" and a "valuable tool for researchers," and that an article he published in "has 
attracted wide attention from the field" including a high number of downloads. The Petitioner 
provided a printout from the ScienceDirect website indicating that his work was one of the "Top 25 
Hottest Articles" in for the period from April to June 2011. The Petitioner's co-author and 
supervisor, further indicated that he has received "many invitations from other 
technical journals on nanotechnology to publish our work" on this research. 
Another contribution that the Petitioner discussed in his introductory letter was his development of a 
computational system for simulating fluid-structure interaction (FSI), which occurs when fluid flow 
causes deformation to a structure, and which affects many engineering and biological technologies 
such as bridges, wind turbines, heart valves, and others. His supervisor, indicated that the 
requested and funded the Petitioner's research on this topic for the purpose of simulating 
the effects of blast explosion shock waves, and that his technology has given the the ability to 
quantify potential in a simulation environment, rather than through expensive and time-
consuming lab testing. a senior technologist at 
stated that he is "aware that fthe Petitioner'sl computer program has been used by the 
to provide accurate 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y-Y-
and fast predictions of the impacts on a dummy operator's inside a ground vehicle 
under a blast wave attack." He described the Petitioner's methodology as having "great practical 
implications for several industry sectors and the scientific community," and attested that it "is 
providing invaluable information" to his own areas of interest in advanced aerospace simulation and 
design methodologies. The Petitioner also submitted a copy of a 2013, article entitled 
'' from the 
website summarizing an article that he published in the 
The Petitioner indicated that his work has been applied by "major industrial companies." He 
submitted a letter from engineering manager at 
, a company that engineers components and systems for powertrain applications. 
indicated that the Petitioner has worked on several proprietary projects funded by 
including the use of FSI analysis to optimize the thermal design of a fan drive system. 
He stated that has used the Petitioner's model to optimize its designs and increase fuel 
efficiency. The Petitioner also provided a letter from an engineer at the 
which develops and supplies filtration systems and other equipment to 
the automotive and mechanical engineering industries. stated that he came across the 
Petitioner's article on CNT simulation when searching for a method to calculate stresses and 
deformations in very thin membranes. He indicated that he has used the Petitioner's computer code 
in his work, and that his method "has had a great impact on research operation in developing new 
types of products such as filters." In addition, in an email to the Petitioner, senior 
systems engineer at a liquid handling products company, , stated that he came across a 
paper of the Petitioner's that was directly relevant to his work on modeling reciprocating pumps with 
checkball valves, and requested advice on applying the research to his own work. 
Further documentation supporting the Form I-140 included copies of four journal articles and eight 
conference presentations that the Petitioner authored, excerpts from four papers by other researchers 
citing to his work, and evidence regarding the frequency with which his published work has been 
downloaded. In addition to the "Top 25 Hottest Articles" printout mentioned above, the Petitioner 
provided certificates indicating that one of his publications was ranked among the 25 most 
downloaded articles in the from October 2012 to March 
2013, and evidence that another of his articles had been downloaded 454 times. He submitted an 
article from entitled describing increasing the use of 
download counts as a measure of academic excellence and publication impact. 2 The Petitioner also 
provided a letter from detailing the funding sources for his research, documentation that he 
served as an editorial board member and a peer reviewer for academic journals, copies of 
communications from students expressing interest in joining his research group, a research award 
from and evidence of his senior membership in the 
2 The article acknowledges the potential for download numbers to be skewed and inflated, but states that has 
developed filtering technology to ensure that its own download counts are reliable. 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of Y- Y-
In a September 9, 2014, request for evidence (RFE), the director noted that the Petitioner is required 
to demonstrate a history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole, and 
requested additional evidence regarding citation of the Petitioner's work by other researchers. In 
response, the Petitioner stated that "citations are but one form of evidence to demonstrate a 
petitioner's research on the field," and he submitted copies of several unpublished AAO decisions in 
which we found a petitioner to have established sufficient influence without a strong citation 
history.3 
The Petitioner indicated that he works for a research center that is funded by government 
organizations, research foundations, and private companies, and that the research is "proprietary in 
nature, and therefore unlikely to result in well-cited journal publications." In a new letter, his 
supervisor, discussed the differences between industrial application research, which is 
driven by needs in the industry, and pure academic research, which is motivated by the researcher's 
own inclinations. He stated that results of the Petitioner's research are delivered directly to the 
organizations that requested and funded the work, and are "most often earmarked 'proprietary' by 
the sponsoring company," preventing publication of key technological information. He further 
contended that the impact of industrial research is best measured by its direct practical application, 
rather than its use by academic researchers. 
indicated that, in addition to providing useful research results to the sponsoring companies, 
the Petitioner was able to publish aspects of his findings in articles and conference papers, and that 
they have proven useful to others in the industry. The Petitioner submitted a letter from 
detailing the company's use of the Petitioner's 
and stating that "it is the only 
model we have found in the 
open literature that is of real, practical use." He further attests that, "because checkball pumps are 
universally used in industry, [the Petitioner's] model is of definite benefit for the industry as a 
whole." 
The Director denied the Form I-140 on April 17, 2014, determining that the Petitioner had not 
established sufficient impact on his field to meet the third prong of the NYSDOT national interest 
analysis. The Director found that the record did not establish a noteworthy record of publication or 
citation, or demonstrate that the Petitioner's presentations at conferences had been influential in his 
field. The decision also stated that the submitted letters indicated that the Petitioner's research had 
impacted the authors' own work, but did not indicate "that the [his] contributions have had 
widespread influence on the field as a whole." 
In his brief on appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "failed to apply flexibility" to allow for 
the industrial nature of his research work, and that the decision did not adequately articulate the 
deficiencies in the submitted evidence regarding the influence of the Petitioner's work. He also 
notes that, under NYSDOT, the required level of past achievement is not "widespread influence on 
3 
We note that while 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all CIS employees in the 
administration ofthe Act; unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. 
5 
Matter ofY-Y-
the field as a whole," but rather "some degree of influence on the whole." He contends that the 
record demonstrates broad application of his research by the industry, and he provides copies of all 
evidence previously submitted. 
As stated above, the analysis set forth in NYSDOT requires a petitioner to demonstrate 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. To do this, a petitioner must establish "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole." Id. at 219, n. 6. 
While a strong citation history can be useful in establishing an extent of an individual's influence on 
the field as a whole, the Petitioner in this instance has provided an explanation for his modest 
citation history, and that explanation is supported by the record. Further, the evidence as a whole 
supports the Petitioner's assertions that his work has found broad practical application in industry 
settings. The submitted letters describe with specificity how his work has been used by the 
organizations that funded his research as well as by independent companies, and they also attest to 
its wider application in the field. For these reasons we find the record sufficient to demonstrate that 
the Petitioner has had a degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The burden is on the Petitioner to show 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). The Petitioner in 
this case has established by a preponderance of the evidence that he qualifies as an advanced degree 
professional, and that a waiver of the job offer requirement will be in the nationat interest of the 
United States. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter ofY-Y-, ID# 15940 (AAO Mar. 11, 2016)