sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Corrosion Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATIER OF J-Z-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 12, 2016 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a corrosion science engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(A). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement . that is normally attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See 
section 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. The Director found that the Petitioner had 
not established his eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification nor did he 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 maintains that he is eligible for classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, but that the Director did not address this and instead 
evaluated the petition based upon the exceptional ability requirements. He further contends that he 
established eligibility for a national interest waiver and that "the law and precedent decision 
regarding a national interest waiver were consistently misapplied or ignored" and the evidence 
submitted was "carelessly reviewed if it was reviewed at all." 
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. 
Matter of J-Z-
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.-
(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 GeneralCJ 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 
demonstrate that the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were 
required by establishing 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 
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 J-Z-
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. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner asserts that he is eligible for classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Director found that the Petitioner was not eligible as an individual of 
exceptional ability under section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), and that he did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the 
national interest. The Director did not address the Petitioner's eligibility as an advanced degree 
professional. . 
The Petitioner submitted a copy of his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the 
earned in 2008. Thus, we find that he qualifies as an advanced degree 
professional. See section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). Since the Petitioner is already eligible for the underlying immigrant classification and an 
additional finding of exceptional ability would serve no meaningful purpose in this matter, we need not 
address that issue. · 
Thus, the rem~iriing issue in contention is ~hether 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 inNYSDOT. 
A. Substantial Intrinsic Merit, 
At the time of filing, the Petitioner was employed as a corrosion engineer by 
He states that he is responsible for developing "corrosioii' mitigation systems" for 
bridges and infrastructure and that he has developed and applied "cathodic protection systems" 
"electrochemical chloride extraction (ECE) procedures" and other services and systems that "guard 
bridges against corrosion processe~" . or gauge the vulnerability of those bridges to such 
deterioration." He maintains that his work has "directly contributed" to the country's infrastructure 
preparedness strategy. The Petitioner submitted documentation showing that his work as a corrosion 
engineer is in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. For example, the record includes information 
from the explaining the importance of highway bridge conditions 
and the burden of corrosion, along with information from the explaining 
the financial costs and risks associated with oxidative and non-oxidative corrosion on the United 
States' bridge infrastructure. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner meets the first prong of the 
NYSDOT national interest analysis, and the Director's determination on this issue is withdrawn. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-Z-
B. National in Scope 
The second prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis requires that the benefit arising from the 
Petitioner's work will be national in scope. The Director determined that the Petitioner had not met 
this requirement because his work "may be of benefit locally," but it "does not impart the United 
States on a national level." We disagree. 
The Petitioner provided evidence indicating that the proposed benefit of his corrosion engineering 
research has national and international scope. He submitted evidence that he has "created and 
guided the installation of corrosion mitigation technologies that bolster bridge and roadway function 
in localities throughout the United States." His work has extended to 
the 
over the in Illinois, and various field-based bridge inspection 
projects in other states. He also submitted evidence that his research was incorporated into 
reports associated with the 
In addition to his field work, the Petitioner provided evidence that his scholarship and publications 
have been disseminated nationally and internationally. According to the report submitted from 
the Petitioner has authored peer-reviewed journal articles which have been cited by 
independent researchers in Germany, Iran, Brazil, Italy, Japan, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and 
throughout the United States. 
On appeal, the Petitioner notes that the precedent decision, NYSDOT, concerned bridge engineering 
work generally limited to New York State and yet, the decision found that the bridge work 
performed by the beneficiary was critical to connect New York to the national transportation system, 
and therefore, served the interests of other regions in the country. The Petitioner draws a compelling 
nexus between the facts of his case and the NYSDOT precedent decision, stating that, like the 
beneficiary in NYSDOT, his bridge work "serves the interests of other regions in the country." He 
has provided evidence that his work extends beyond one particular "locality" or state as it involves 
inspecting, maintaining, and repairing bridges and infrastructure that connect the national 
infrastructure and 
"serve the interest" of many regions throughout the United States. 
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner meets the second prong of the NYSDOT national interest 
analysis, and the Director's determination on this issue is withdrawn.· 
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 Director stated that the evidence did not support a finding that 
the Petitioner's work "has been of major significance in the field." 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of J-Z-
On appeal, the Petitioner indicates that his influence on the field as a whole is demonstrated through 
both his scholarship and his field work, and he maintains that the Director applied the wrong standard of 
law. Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that he is not required to prove that his work has been "of major 
significance," rather the correct standard is whether his work has had a 
degree of influ~nce on the field 
as a whole. We agree. 
At the time of filing, the Pe~itioner was working as a corrosion science engineer for 
The Petitioner seeks to continue his research in the corrosion science field and has 
submitted documentation of his published work, conference presentations, peer review activities, 
research projects, professional memberships, and educational credentials. The record also includes 
evidence demonstrating that his published and presented 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. 
While the fact that the Petitioner's research has been cited does not necessarily mean that it has 
impacted the field, here it is accompanied by evidence that the individuals citing the work have 
found it impactful and have used it. 
The Petitioner submitted various reference letters discussing his scholarship. Several authors 
describe how the Petitioner's findings are "critical" and "novel," and explain how they have served 
as an impetus for their own research. For example, co-owner of 
a compariy providing evaluation and consultation on materials problems, described 
how the Petitioner's "novel study" of the corrosive behavior of aluminum matrix composites, 
"provides [a] great framework for the field of engineering to carefully reassess the optimal way of 
using these composites, as well as finding the best way to further reinforce these composites for 
greater resistance to corrosion." She stated that the Petitioner's work is "laying vital basis to the 
exploration of several prototypical models" that are "essential to the development of metal coatings 
with improved corrosion resistance and reduced environmental impact." 
Similarly, an engineering professor at 
Nigeria, indicated that he has directly implemented the Petitioner's findings into his 
own research. He stated that the Petitioner's "novel analysis" regarding the deterioration 
vulnerability of alumina-reinformed composites is "incredibly important to the deployment of this 
composite for use in a variety of engineering designs." Furth~rmore, 
professor of chemistry, Colombia, explained that 
he directly utilized the Petitioner's research developing novel ceramic-polymer silane-based outer 
coatings for aluminum and other metallic substrates. He described how the Petitioner's work 
"provided us with a key extant success to which we could turn in our own development of a similar 
yet importantly distinct silicone-based coating with comparable applications." also stated 
that the Petitioner's research "represents a high watermark in that area of corrosion science," and 
attested that several of his colleagues have also "gained" from the Petitioner's research. He further 
explained how the use of his work "indicates that [the Petitioner's] peers consider his efforts 
authoritative in the discussion of that topic, signifying his importance to the field as a whole." These 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of J -Z-
letters satisfactorily chronicle the Petitioner's degree of influence in the field through his scholarship 
and publications. 
In addition to demonstrating a strong citation and publication history, the evidence in the aggregate 
supports the Petitioner's affirmation that his work has also found practical application in industry 
and government settings. The submitted letters describe with specificity how his work has been used 
by the employer that recruited him, as well as by state departments of transportation, and they also 
attest to its wider application in the field. 
For example, state corrosion mitigation technologist for stated that the Petitioner's 
2011 design of cathodic protection systems for the 11 bridges located throughout and 
counties will "significantly preserve the life span of the bridges, giving them 25-75 additional 
years of activity before they would need further corrective efforts." went on to describe 
how the Petitioner's success with the 2011 project led to recruit him for a 2012 project to 
rehabilitate the bridge spanning the He described how the 
Petitioner's work "has been significant to Florida, but also has great value to the rest of the country." 
He further stated that the Petitioner's work on the corrosion control of structures in coastal areas 
"went a great ways towards improving the public safety and increasing the sustainability of the 
regional economy." 
In addition, national practice leader, bridge instrumentation and evaluation, 
described how the Petitioner led a team of engineers to evaluate the structural integrity 
~~ m 
stated that the Petitioner evaluated the corrosion vulnerability of 120 steel columns that would 
be susceptible to corrosion over time. explained that "[the Petitioner] proposed 
synthesized corrosion inspection and monitoring methods" at different levels for the fully enclosed 
columns that will enable engineers to "appropriately monitor and assess the corrosion of the 
camouflaged steel columns." indicated that the Petitioner's proposal was approved by the 
and that he was "critical to the success of this endeavor." 
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 through both his scholarship and his work on major corrosion 
mitigation projects throughout the United States. 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 Petitioner has established that he qualifies as an advanced degree professional 
and 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. 
6 
Matter of J-Z-
Accordingly, the Petitioner has met his burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
Cite as Matter of 1-Z-, ID 67841 (AAO Dec. 12, 2016) 
7