sustained EB-2 NIW Case: Wireless Communications Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF G-V-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 6, 2016 
APPEAL OF NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a senior engineer working on wireless communications technology, 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). 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 (US CIS) 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, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director found 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. Specifically the Director concluded that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated the necessary influence in the field. 
The matter is now before us on appeal. In his appeal, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and 
maintains that the Director erred by focusing on citations and giving insufficient weight to other 
exhibits. 
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 confirm 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 ofExceptional Ability.-
Matter of G- V-
(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) Subject to clause (ii), 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.[1] 
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 Dep't ofTransp., 22 I&N Dec. 215,217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998), 
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 verifY 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 
national benefit. !d. at 219. Rather, a petitioner must justify projections of future benefit to the 
national interest by documenting 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 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ("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 G- V-
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner obtained a Ph.D. in microwave electronics, electromagnetism, and optoelectronics 
from He seeks to continue his work as a senior engineer. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner is an advanced degree professional. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) (definitions 
of advanced degree and profession). As explained by the Petitioner in his initial letter, his area of 
work is radio frequency (RF) and microwave engineering, the branch of electrical engineering that 
allows wireless communication between devices. The record reflects that his graduate research 
involved the creation of a new calibration technique to allow more accurate computer modelling and 
more efficient production of RF devices. In his position as a senior engineer for 
the Petitioner is applying his modelling skills to the design of a radar sensor for 
complex speed tracking systems to improve highway and railway safety, and the development of a 
high-efficiency amplifier for use in the fifth generation cellular network. 
The Director acknowledged that the Petitioner worked in an area of intrinsic merit and that the 
proposed benefits of his research, creating more powerful and reliable systems at lower costs, would 
be national in scope. At issue is whether the Petitioner has shown the necessary track record and 
influence to verify that it is in the national interest to waive the job offer requirement. The Petitioner 
provided numerous letters, published scholarly articles, some evidence of citations, an invitation to 
peer review a manuscript for a journal, and his receipt of €20,000 at the 
in 2012. Acknowledging the letters but focusing primarily on the number of citations, 
the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his contributions "have enjoyed 
widespread implementation." The standard, however, is whether the Petitioner has a history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. For the reasons 
discussed below, we find the Petitioner has ·met this standard. 
The record indicates the Petitioner was actively recruited by and has applied his pnor 
research to the company's benefit. Specifically, president and chief executive officer 
of that company, affirms that he met the Petitioner at a symposium and invited him to interview for a 
position. After the interview process, offered him the senior engineer position despite the 
fact that he had not previously worked in industry "because I believed deeply in the advantage that 
he could bring to [the] company." director of Business & Legal Affairs at 
explains that upon starting at that company, the Petitioner "applied the results of his research to his 
work here." notes that by hiring the Petitioner, was able to incorporate his results, 
which derive from his prior published research. 
The Petitioner has authored 
scholarly articles and accumulated some citations. The record contains 
his unpublished thesis, two published articles, and conference presentations appearing in published 
proceedings. The Petitioner initially presented seven total citations. In response to the Director's 
. request for evidence, he also documented a large number of views and downloads. The Director 
noted that publication alone is not a gauge of impact; rather, citations are a reliable statistic in 
evaluating the impact of those articles. The Director further stated that, unlike citations, views and 
downloads do not confirm any ultimate reliance on the Petitioner's findings. The Director then 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of G- V-
concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the field's reaction to his articles distinguished him 
from his peers. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on a non-precedent decision for the proposition that citations are not 
the only acceptable means of measuring impact. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that AAO 
precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, 
unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Nevertheless, we agree with this principle. It is 
necessary to review all of the evidence in the record, While the Director is correct that views and 
downloads by themselves . do not confirm the impact of the articles, other materials in the record 
must be part of our analysis and may shed light on the Petitioner's influence. 
In this case, some of the letters predict future benefits without detailing how the Petitioner has 
already had a degree of influence on the field. For example, the Petitioner's thesis 
judge, predicts that the Petitioner's work "will have a valued intervention in the company he will 
join." professor and chair, 
concludes that the Petitioner's Ph.D. thesis results "pave the way to crucial 
and in depth investigations in this research area." assistant professor of electrical 
engineering, explains: "With the refinement of RF technology based on graphene 
or other emerging material, the quest for excellence will make mandatory the use of techniques such 
[as] that of [the Petitioner] to optimize every compartment of RF material research." While these 
letters are useful in detailing how the Petitioner will benefit the national interest, the Petitioner must 
also show his past track record. 
Other letters in the record provide specific examples of how the Petitioner has already had some 
degree of influence in the field beyond his immediate circle of colleagues. 
associate professor at the m affirms that he applied the 
Petitioner's model and cited his work. Specifically, explains that the Petitioner 
anticipated a trend, and extended the validity range of nanoscale transistor models to large scale 
ones. Because of this work, continues, he "implemented [the Petitioner's] model and 
used it to further improve [his] own work on [graphene nanoribbon] transistors." 
an electronic engineer at clarifies that he met the Petitioner at an 
electronics exposition where they discussed the "worse than expected reception issue" in one of 
products. The Petitioner suggested his technique, which applied, 
allowing "to enhance the performance of its product and to reduce the costs 
associated [with] the manufacture of its equipment." a validation engineer at 
discovered the Petitioner's technique and contacted him. "The procedure introduced by 
[the Petitioner] allowed accelerating the development, achieving the measurement accuracy 
required." a senior electrical engineer at met the 
Petitioner after contacting with an inquiry. The Petitioner's proposal "reduced the prototype 
costs by 30%" and "accelerated our design efforts." 
Additional letters the Petitioner offers on appeal further reflect his influence beyond his employer. 
a Ph.D. graduate, met the Petitioner at a seminar where he and a coauthor 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of G-V-
"addressed an issue similar to one I had at my company that despite my hard work I could not 
solve." The Petitioner "delivered an accurate and reliable measurement of the transistor I used, 
enabling full and effective broadband operation." Finally, hardware validation 
and integration engineer for affirms that, after looking for a long time for a 
suitable RF technique, a colleague at pointed him towards the Petitioner's de-
embedding method. "implemented it in [his] validation setup, allowing [him] 
to promptly and precisely remove the unwanted effects of the filter and interconnection components 
in the device under test." concludes that the Petitioner's procedure resulted in "an 
enormous gain in productivity for my work as [a] contractor." These letters satisfactorily chronicle 
the Petitioner's degree of influence in the field. 
While a strong citation history can be useful in establishing an extent of an individual's influence on 
the field as a whole, the evidence in the aggregate supports the Petitioner 's affirmation that his work 
has found practical application in industry settings at multiple employers. The submitted letters 
describe with specificity how his work has been used by the employer that recruited him based on 
his technique, 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 national interest of the 
United States. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained. 
ORDER: The appeal is sustained. 
' Cite as Matter ofG-V- , ID# 17470 (AAO July 6, 2016) 
5