sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Computer Science

idenufying olr1& ucrrreu tu 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
invasion of wrsonal ~rhq 
PUBLIC COPY 
U.S. I 
20 M 
Wash 
FILE: EAC 03 075 500 10 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTEI 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professi 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 20: 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 1 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All docurr 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to 
u Cj, R0be.rt.P. W.iemann, Director 
Admlnlstrat~ve Appeals Office 
lartment of Homeland Security 
Ave.. N.W . Rm. A3042 
,ton. DC 20529 
litizenship 
Immigration 
.ces 
s Holding an Advanced 
))(2) of the Immigration 
its have been returned to 
~t office. 
EAC 03 075 50010 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by tt 
Center, and is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appl 
petition will be approved. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 2 
8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degrc 
petitioner was a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton 
asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor c 
interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for clas 
professions holding an advanced degree but that the petitioner had not established 
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 
Ability. -- 
(A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants 
the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who becausl 
ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially benefit prosp 
economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare of the United States, a 
the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the 1 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General d 
national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that 
the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an em1 
States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the prof 
degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established th 
requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest.'' 
not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by increasil 
of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States economically and othc 
101 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
Supplementary information to the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 
at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 199 l), states: 
The Service [now Citizenship and Immigration Services] believes it app, 
application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien 
[national interest] standard must make a showing significantly above that nc 
"prospective national benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as ' 
Director, Vermont Service 
I will be sustained and the 
1 Nationality Act (the Act), 
At the time of filing, the 
qew Jersey. The petitioner 
tification, is in the national 
3cation as a member of the 
hat an exemption from the 
Aliens of Exceptional 
ho are members of 
)f their exceptional 
tively the national 
I whose services in 
~ited States. 
:ms it to be in the 
alien's services in 
)yer in the United 
sions holding an advanced 
a waiver of the job offer 
Additionally, Congress did 
~diciary merely noted in its 
the number and proportion 
wise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 
390 (IMMACT), published 
priate to leave the 
eking to meet the 
ssary to prove the 
cceptional."] The 
EAC 03 075 50010 
Page 3 
burden will rest with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of 
in the national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Trunsportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Comm. 1998 
which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. 
the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it musi 
benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must est; 
the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available L 
minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective natio 
established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit tc 
petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the natio 
establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" i: 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no dem 
and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. 
Counsel describes the petitioner's work: 
[The petitioner] has been doing research that focuses on the theory of col 
and their applications to computer networks. . . . 
[The petitioner] has advanced the field of theory of computing through h 
computational models and his research on the classification of 
computational difficulty. His most important contributions to this area 
proofs of the complexity of lower bounds of computational problems. 
proofs that he is most known for is his demonstration that no space effic 
for the problem of approximating max distance of two vectors in the data 
petitioner's] research discoveries in this area will have an impact on 
computations for massive data sets. 
Counsel claims that the petitioner's "appointment to the Institute of Advanc 
indication of his recognition as a distinguished expert in his field" (counsel 
evidence will receive due consideration, we are not of the opinion that the reputat 
facie evidence that the employee qualifies for a waiver. Congress created nc 
working at institutions above some arbitrary threshold of prestige. Counsel asserl 
for a national interest waiver because he "was able to develop new mathematical 
help to solve memory problems when performing computations with large data 
computations, and performing computer network mapping." 
Several letters accompany the petitioner's initial submission. ~rofessorm 
Advanced Study School of Mathematics states: 
[The petitioner's] work, centered upon the theory of computing, a 
applications to computer networks, has materially advanced the field of 
elucidating the power of various computational models and the classific: 
inherent computational difficulty. His essential contribution in this are; 
innovative proof of the "complexity lower bounds" of computatior 
he job offer will be 
has set forth several factors 
+st, it must be shown that 
be shown that the proposed 
lish that the alien will serve 
, worker having the same 
d benefit, it clearly must be 
he national interest. The 
1 interest cannot suffice to 
~sed here to require future 
~strable prior achievements, 
wting, algorithms, 
analysis of several 
poblems by their 
oncern innovative 
he of the specific 
nt algorithms exist 
ream model. [The 
lvanced studies of 
I Studies is considered an 
emphasis). While all the 
n of the employer is prima 
3lanket waivers for aliens 
that the petitioner qualifies 
rmulas and algorithms that 
:ts, improving data stream 
of the Institute of 
~ithms and their 
Imputer theory by 
3n of problems by 
:manates from his 
I problems. . . . 
EAC 03 075 500 10 
Page 4 
Computational difficulty of a problem is quantitatively referred to as its c mplexity measure, 
expressed as a function of the size of the input to the problem. Among uch measures time 
(number of steps in computation) and space (size of the memory used) are primary. The 
"space" efficient algorithms are under current and close mathernatica study due to the 
massive data sets being processed in scientific computation . . . as ell as expanding 
international trade and e-commerce. . . . [The petitioner's] successful de onstration that no 
"space" efficient algorithm exists for the problem of approximating M x distance of two 
vectors in [the data stream] model now permits researchers to focus on ther approaches to 
handle this problem. 
I 
Other witnesses discuss the petitioner's work in varying degrees of technical det they generally focus on 
the petitioner's demonstration that there exists no space-efficient algorithm for distance of vectors in 
large data sets. ~rofessom the petitioner's Ph.D. supervisor at Rutge states that the 
petitioner's discovery that there is no efficient algorithm for Max distance "was 
that has gained recognition among our colleagues." 
Two witnesses do not indicate anv connection to the ~etitioner through institdtions where he worked or 
of the State University of ~ew York at that the petitioner 
of the University of 
[The petitioner] has advanced the field of computer theory through his analysis of several 
computational models and his research on the classification of roblems by their 
computational difficulty. His most important contribution to this area ncerns innovative 
proofs of the complexity of lower bounds of computational problems. In particular, [the 
petitioner] successfully demonstrated that no space efficient algorithms e ist for the problem 
of approximating max distance of two vectors in the data stream model. This is a valuable 
discovery that will have an impact on advanced studies of computations f massive data sets. 
Large data set models are of critical importance to many areas of mode scientific activity 
including genetics research, biostatistics, telecommunications, as well as ther areas such as 
finance. I 
I am familiar with [the petitioner's] published research, as it is in my field 
that [the petitioner's] contributions to the field of theory of computing 
highly regarded. 
The director denied the petition, acknowledging the intrinsic merit of the er's work, but concluding 
that the petitioner had not "shown that the impact of the beneficiary's activities would be 
national in scope" or that "the national interest of the United States affected if a labor 
certification were required for the beneficiary." The director stated record does not 
corroborate the claim that the petitioner's work has been especially The director 
also noted that the petitioner was not first author of many of his published papers. 
of study. I can say 
are influential and 
The director denied the petition without first issuing a request for evidence. director cited 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.2(b)(8), which indicates that a petition may be denied without a evidence if the record 
contains evidence of ineligibility. The director did not identify any The same cited 
regulation also indicates that a request for evidence should be issued ineligibility and 
the available evidence is insufficient to support a finding of 
EAC 03 075 50010 
Page 5 
closely to mirror the facts of the proceeding at hand. From the construction of th 
lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of ineligibility. 
We agree with counsel that the petitioner's work is, indeed, national in scopc 
concern fundamental issues of computational theory, and these issues have no gc 
petitioner conducted his studies at major research institutions and disseminated I 
and international publications. 
On appeal, counsel states that, in the petitioner's field, the convention is to c 
order. The materials in the record are uniformly consistent with that assertio~ 
specific order of author credits, however, is the impact that the published work 
the field. On appeal, the petitioner submits listings from http://scholar.~oo~le.co 
petitioner's articles have been cited an aggregate total of 75 times, with the m 
citations. Counsel observes that these totals do not include self-citations by t 
articles does include self-citations by the petitioner's co-authors. Even taking thi 
has demonstrated heavy citation of his work. The articles that cite his work arc 
citation frequency; only six of the 75 articles have been cited more than 20 time 
petitioner's work, together with the independent assessments of the petition 
corroborates the claim that the petitioner's work has been influential within his fi~ 
Another independent witness statement accompanies the appeal. Professor Steph 
of Toronto begins by listing his own impressive credentials, including members 
National Acaderrly of Sciences and its British and Canadian counterparts. Prof. C 
is "extraordinarily talented," "truly brilliant" and "one of the cutting edge 
concludes: "as one of the world's leading experts in the field of computational cc 
[the petitioner's] research advances . . . have been widely recognized as grounc 
the petitioner has objectively documented this wide recognition, and therefo~ 
statements of individual witnesses to support such a conclusion. 
It does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to grant national interest wai\ 
importance of a given field of research, rather than on the merits of the individu: 
above testimony, and further testimony in the record, establishes that independent 
the significance of this petitioner's research rather than simply the general area 
retaining this alien's services outweighs the national interest that is inherent in tl 
Therefore, on the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has established thz 
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 29 
The petitioner has sustained that burden. Accordingly, the decision of the direct0 
withdrawn and the petition will be approved. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved. 
regulation, it is clear that a 
The petitioner's findings 
graphical boundaries. The 
; findings through national 
dit authors in alphabetical 
More important than the 
1s had on other scholars in 
, indicating that five of the 
it-cited article showing 45 
: petitioner, but the list of 
into account, the petitioner 
isted in order of their own 
The heavy citation of the 
's work discussed above, 
1. 
A. Cook of the University 
p in the highly prestigious 
ok states that the petitioner 
inkers" in his field. He 
~plexity, I can confirm that 
.caking." As noted above, 
we need not rely on the 
.s on the basis of the overall 
alien. That being said, the 
:perts in the field recognize 
f research. The benefit of 
labor certification process. 
i waiver of the requirement 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. 
ienying the petition will be