sustained EB-2 NIW Case: International Relations

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cl¢~.L~ Elwarranled 
invasion of personal privac~ 
PUBUCCOpy 
DATE: JAN 1 0 2012 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. § I 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petItion. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's appeal from that 
decision. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO will 
grant the motion and approve the petition. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.c. § IIS3(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced The petitioner seeks employment as an adjunct assistant professor of 
intemational po litics at Massachusetts. The petitioner asserts that an 
exemption from the of an alien employment certification, is in the 
national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for the 
classification sought, but determined that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On motion, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel, three witness letters, and exhibits relating to the 
petitioner's work with the news media. 
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. 
(8) 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. 
There is no dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The sole issue in dispute is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus an alien employment certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations defme the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress 
did not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
-Page 3 
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, IOlst Cong., 1st Sess., II (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must 
make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benefit" [required of aliens seeking to quality 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. 
Matter a/New York State Dep't. a/Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Comm'r. 1998), has set 
forth several factors that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services must consider when evaluating a 
request for a national interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show that the alien seeks employment in 
an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Id. at 217. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed 
benefit will be national in scope. ld. Finally, the petitioner seeking 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. Id. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. Id. at 219. The 
petitioner's SUbjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot 
suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" requires future contributions 
by the alien and does not facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior achievements, and 
whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. ld. 
The AAO previously acknowledged the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's area of expertise, Korean 
international relations, and the national scope ofthe petitioner's proposed work. (The AAO writes 
the present decision days after the death an event that shone even 
more of a spotlight on the volatility of Korea.) At issue is 
the question of whether the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an 
available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. 
The motion includes documentation about various media outlets that have carried the petitioner's 
opinion pieces, such as the Wall Street Journal. The AAO acknowledged the petitioner's published 
work when the petitioner submitted copies previously, but found that the petitioner had failed to 
"demonstrate the ultimate influence of these publications. The record lacks evidence that other 
international relations experts have cited the petitioner's published work, that professors at a significant 
number of independent institutions have assigned these articles as required reading or comparable 
evidence of the influence ofthe above articles." The AAO also stated that the petitioner had not shown 
that his efforts "represent more than the typical foreign policy discourse among those in academia and 
think tanks." 
On motion, the petitioner submits materials that show more clearly tbat he is not merely a self­
appointed pundit who puts forth his unsolicited views in letters to the editor, blog posts or the comments 
section of news stories. Rather, major, respected news outlets actively seek out his opinions and 
commentary, indicating that the highest sources take the petitioner's views seriously on the important 
subjects he discusses. 
Counsel, on motion, asserts that the petitioner and his witnesses were previously unsure of the caliber of 
evidence required to show eligibility for the national interest waiver. On motion, the petitioner seeks to 
remedy the deficiency by submitting more specific witness letters. 
states in his latest letter: 
No single individual is wholly responsible for policy planning on a target nation of 
such vital U.S. national interest like North Korea. At the same time, few academics, 
and no South Korean national working in the United States, have been as presciently 
and consistently making policy-relevant arguments on the issue as [the petitioner]. 
the time of the motion a national intelligence fellow at the Council on Foreign 
Re:lationls, OlreVlOllslv held a number of intelligence posts for the United States government, most 
recently as director of Korea, Japan, and Oceanic Affairs at the National Security Council. • 
asserts that the petitioner's efforts to remain in the United States "is ... certainly a matter of significant 
interest to the U.S. government." 
operates a blog at http://freekorea. us, states: 
among others. I bave also given 
testimony before the former House International Relations Committee, and have made 
unofficial contributions to proposed legislation through readers who work on Capitol 
Hill. I was summoned to the office of one U.S. Senator to personally brief him on North 
Korea-related issues on three separate occasions .... 
I write ... as a member of the American voting public who is improbably blessed with a 
global audience of journalists, diplomats, policy-makers, and lawmakers, and whose 
own ideas have been profoundly influenced and informed by reading [the petitioner's] 
work. ... 
Page 5 
In my ten-plus years of studying North Korea, 1 have learned of just two people on this 
Earth who are capable ofreading and understanding North Korea's threats, inducements, 
and propaganda in the original Korean, and of giving American audiences a coherent 
understanding of their complex, almost untranslatable nuances, and of their historical 
and cultural overtones. [The petitioner] is one of them. ... 
I have also found great clarity in his analysis in 
••••••••••••••• No other observer has done more to inform my 
own understanding of the North Korean regime's lexicon and pathology than [the 
petitioner]. 
The AAO previously dismissed the petitioner's appeal based largely on a lack of corroboration and 
specificity. On motion, the petitioner has addressed and remedied these shortcomings and 
established, by a preponderance of evidence, that he is a respected and influential expert on policy 
relating especially to North Korea. The petitioner has shown that the benefit of retaining his 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 ofthe requirement ofan approved 
labor certification will be in the national interest ofthe 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. 
ORDER: The AAO withdraws its decision of April 21, 2011, and the director's decision of 
January 26, 201 0, and approves the petition.