sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7209032 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 7, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer science researcher, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job 
offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he is eligible for 
a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework . 
In these 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. 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 EB-2 visa classification , as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences , arts, or business. Because this classification 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 sets out this sequential framework: 
(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 ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he 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. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion 2, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas 
such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. In 
determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential 
prospective impact. 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine 
whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or 
similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed 
endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or 
individuals. 
The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. In performing 
this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign 
national's qualifications or the proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign 
national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification; whether, even assuming 
1 In announcing this new rramework. we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation. 22 l&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
2 See also Poursina v. USC1S. No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign 
national's contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national's contributions is 
sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. In each case, the factor(s) 
considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States 
to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 3 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director found that the Petitoner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 4 The sole issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was a professor of computer science at I~------~ 
University in South Korea. With respect to his prospective employment in the United States, the 
Petitioner provided a detailed statement regarding his future research plans and documentation of his 
communications with U.S. employers relating to their interest in hiring him for research and 
development positions. 5 For the reasons discussed below, we find the Petitioner has established 
eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. 
A. Substantial Merit and National Importance of the Proposed Endeavor 
The Petitioner indicated that his proposed endeavor involves conducting research relating to system 
software and its implementation into commercial software products. He ex lained that he lans to 
continue his research aimed at develo in software latforms for 
The record includes articles discussing the economic benefits of developin;i;:2.!:==:::::;----.,---.... wireless 
sensing systems, projected growth in thel I technology and di ital markets, business 
benefits attributable tq I transactions, and the expansion o_,__ ___ _.software applications. 
The Petitioner also provided information about mobile device security, Internet of Things I I 
market opportunities, and the increasing demand for products and services in the I I 
~------~ industry. The record therefore supports the Director's determination that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit. 
To satisfy the national importance requirement, the Petitioner must demonstrate the "potential 
prospective im act" of his work. In addition to the aforementioned information about projected market 
growth in~------------------------------ technologies, the 
Petitioner offered letters of support discussing the potential benefits of his proposed research and how 
3 See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
4 The Petitioner presented the official academic record for his Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering (2000) fi-om 
I luniversit,~ ________ .,..in South Korea and an academic credential evaluation indicating that the 
aforementioned degree is the foreign equivalent of a U.S. Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering. 
5 As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from 
a specific employer. However, we consider information about these positions to illustrate the capacity in which he intends 
to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar framework. 
3 
it stands to advance his field. For instance, I I professor of computer science at the 
University of~--------~ explained that the Petitioner's research is aimed at finding 
"creative, software-based solutions to extendina I and that this work seeks to "to improve 
I I and computing performance" in a multi-billion dollar industry. Furthermore, the Petitioner 
has submitted documentation indicating that the benefit of his proposed research has broader 
implications for the field, as the results are disseminated to others in the field through engineering 
journals and conferences. As the Petitioner has documented both the substantial merit and national 
importance of his proposed endeavor, we conclude that he meets the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
B. Well Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor 
The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the Petitioner. The record includes 
his curriculum vitae, academic records, published and presented work, patents, and documentation of 
articles that cited to his research findings. In addition, the Petitioner offered reference letters 
describing his expertise in computer science and his past record of success in that field. 
We find that the Petitioner's past experience renders him well positioned to advance his proposed 
endeavor. Multiple expert references identify specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has 
impacted his field. For example, I I stated that "[ o ]ne particularly influential contribution of [the 
Petitioner] is his development of a middleware software to mana e the f wireless computers." 
I !explained that the Petitioner created "a novel al orithm for real-time tasks" on 
multicore processors that "saves around 60 percent of the ~-----~ by previous scheduling 
algorithms that relied upon executing individual tasks on a separate core." 
With respect to the Petitioner's development otl 00 I scheduling algorithms, I I I I professor and chair of the computer science and engineering department at University of 
~-----~ indicated that he is "one of the many scholars whose subsequent work has been 
predicated on concepts originating in [ the Petitione~s." I I asserted that the Petitioner's 
"work offered an excellent framework for applyingL___J scheduling to arbitrarily divisible loads" and 
~is development of the I land,__ ___________ ___. 
L__J scheduling approaches" effectively reduced computation time. Because of this reduction in 
computation time,I I stated that he "based the task execution order of my algorithm on~ 
scheduling, and I ensured that it was also applicable to I !scheduling. Furthermore, I directly applied 
a metric [the Petitioner] developed since it was the best way to evaluate the performance of my 
algorithm." 
Regarding the Petitioner's development o~ • I software for mobile devices,I I professor 
of computer science at I I University, asserted that the Petitioner "offered a superior 
proof of concept that revealed the importance of being able to accurately predict and, indeed, guarantee 
I I of a network. By balancing the residual I lof the sensors, [the Petiti
1
ner] wa
1 able to achieve this sort of guarantee." I I noted that his research team's findings on 
I O I routing for wireless sensor networks incorporated the Petitioner's "previous work on the 
subject into our routing scheme." He further indicated that the Petitioner's "findings have substantially 
advanced the state ofresearch on these networks as well as their crucial I !applications." 
4 
The record contains additional letters from researchers who state that they relied on the Petitioner's 
findings in their work. As corroborating documentation regarding the significance of his work, the 
Petitioner submitted citation evidence showing that his published work has been frequently cited by 
independent researchers, and that the rate at which his work has been cited is high relative to others in his 
field. In addition, he provided evidence indicating that various companies have commercialized or 
licensed his patented technologies. The aforementioned documentation helps demonstrate that the 
Petitioner is well positioned to advance his proposed research in the United States. 
The Petitioner's experience and expertise in his field, published and presented work, citation evidence, 
record of success contributing to various research projects, technological innovations, and progress in 
computer science research position him well to advance his proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the record 
demonstrates that the Petitioner satisfies the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
C. Balancing Factors to Determine Waiver's Benefit to the United States 
As explained above, the third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. As a researcher specializing in the development of wireless mobile 
computersJ !protection software for.__ _____ ~systems, andl !routing 
mechanisms for wireless computers, the Petitioner possesses considerable experience and expertise in 
computer science. The record also demonstrates the widespread benefits associated with res~ 
progress in software platformsJ I software for.__ ______ ~ andLJ 
.__ ____ __, technologies. In addition, the Petitioner has documented his past successes in advancing 
computer science research, and in publishing and presenting influential research findings. Based on the 
Petitioner's track record of successful research and the significance of that work to advance U.S. 
technological and commercial interests, we find that he offers contributions of such value that, on balance, 
they would benefit the United States even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has met the requisite three prongs set forth in the Dhanasar analytical framework. We 
find that he has established he is eligible for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter 
of discretion. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
5