国家利益豁免（NIW）上诉案例选辑
Compiled and Summarized by Susan K. Covington, Case Manager at Liu &
Associates, PLLC
When a National Interest Waiver petition was erroneously denied by the USCIS
, the petitioner/beneficiary can appeal the denial to the Administrative
Appeals Office (AAO) within 30 days of the denial date. The legal standards
for a National Interest Waiver as set out in Matter of New York State Dept.
of Transportation are: (1) that the alien seeks employment in an area of
substantial intrinsic merit; (2) that the proposed benefit will be national
in scope; and (3) that the national interest would be adversely affected if
a labor certification were required. AAO will either sustain or dismiss the
appeal based on the evidence submitted.
****************************************************************************
***
AAO Appeal Case No. 1
Case Type: NIW
Original Case: The Petitioner/Beneficiary sought employment as an
immunologist at the University of California in Berkeley, and submitted
several letters from his colleagues at this institution. These letters
argued the excellence of the petitioner’s work, but they emphasized what
the petitioner was likely to accomplish in the future rather than the impact
he had already made on his field. In the original case and the response to
a request for evidence, the petitioner did not submit evidence such as
independent reference letters to prove his influence outside of the
universities where he worked.
Initial Ruling: The case was denied by the USCIS on the grounds that the
national interest would not be adversely affected if a labor certification
were required. The USCIS argued that the petitioner’s prior achievements
did not justify the projected future benefits because:
1. The petitioner has received no substantial attention outside of the
universities where he had worked or studied
2. The claims of the petitioner and his close colleagues that he possesses
“superior ability” are not sufficient to justify a national interest
waiver
Appellate Ruling: On appeal, the petitioner submitted evidence that his
work had been cited frequently by other researchers in his field. The
citation record was accepted as sufficient evidence of the petitioner’s
impact on his field.
Result of Appeal: The Appeal was sustained and the case was approved.
***********************************************************************
AAO Appeal Case No. 2
Case Type: NIW
Original Case: This NIW case was filed by a U.S. employer (the Petitioner)
that sought to hire the Beneficiary as its managing director. The
Petitioner is a non-profit organization that has programs in cities across
the United States aimed at creating job opportunities for inner city
residents. The Beneficiary’s position as managing director would require
him to develop programs for other cities, manage and administrate a branch
office of the organization, and play a key role in organizational management
and fundraising for the organization. The Beneficiary’s background
includes demonstrated successes in the field of urban development in the
United States and overseas.
Initial Ruling: The case was denied by the USCIS, and the adjudicator
found that the Beneficiary qualified as a member of the professions holding
an advanced degree but that it had not been established that exemption from
the requirement of labor certification would be in the national interest.
The director argued that:
1. The benefit was not national in scope;
2. The National Interest Waiver is not justified by projected benefits to a
business; and
3. Possible future implementation of the beneficiary’s work is not
sufficient to justify a National Interest Waiver.
Appellate Ruling: The Petitioner filed an appeal arguing that the
Beneficiary’s work is indeed national in scope and a waiver of labor
certification is justified due to the Beneficiary’s past achievements. AAO
sustained the appeal and ruled that:
1. Although the beneficiary’s work is largely local, the local project is
the national model for the Petitioner’s projects in other cities across the
nation;
2. Since the petitioner is a non-profit organization, its goal is not to
secure its own profits;
3. Based on the widespread success and recognition of the Beneficiary’s
work, a waiver of labor certification is justified.
Result of Appealed: The Appeal was sustained and the case was approved.
***********************************************************************
AAO Appeal Case No. 3
Case Type: NIW
Original Case: The petitioner has a PhD from a foreign university in
Nuclear Chemical Engineering. The petitioner works at the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, which is one of nine operated for and funded by the
Department of Energy. The letters of recommendation submitted by the
petitioner’s colleagues detail his specific accomplishments, which have
substantial merit and are necessary to protect the environment and the
public, such as the safe storage of nuclear waste and the development of
catalyst decomposition process to decompose a highly poisonous gas. The
petitioner was also served as Principal Investigator on a major project when
the original PI was on leave.
Initial Ruling: The USCIS denied this case on the grounds that the
national interest would not be adversely affected by a labor certification,
claiming that there was insufficient evidence that the petitioner would
serve the national interest to a greater extent than an available US worker
with the same minimum qualifications. The USCIS argued that:
1. The petitioner’s selection “by default” as PI of a major project was
insufficient to demonstrate his excellence;
2. The record did not establish that petitioner had been widely cited.
Appellate Ruling: The Petitioner/Beneficiary appealed his case with further
evidence to show that the petitioner had been appointed as PI for a multi-
laboratory collaboration. AAO found that the petitioner’s original
appointment as the replacement PI was indeed evidence of merit, and that the
DOE was unlikely to allow a minor researcher to fill an important research
position. AAO also found that the petitioner had published 20 articles, most
of which were first-authored, and attributed the lack of extensive citation
to the fact that most universities and laboratories do not have the
resources to research plutonium disposal. AAO ruled that the significance of
the Petitioner’s specific achievements had been well established by the
evidence, and that the lack of extensive citation did not contradict this
evidence.
Result of Appeal: The Appeal was sustained and the case was approved.
***********************************************************************
AAO Appeal Case No. 4
Case Type: NIW
Original Case: The petitioner/beneficiary, an entomologist, submitted a
number of letters of recommendation with his petition, both from
collaborators and independent references. These letters established that he
had made significant impact on his field and that he had “made significant
advances where others have failed.”
Initial Ruling: The case was denied, but the USCIS appears to have confused
the standards of Eb-1A with NIW. Specifically, the decision includes
references to “widespread recognition” and “regulatory criteria,” which
are not included in the NIW standards but are part of the language for Eb-1A
qualifications. The USCIS also included language inconsistent with the
evidence of record; for example, the decision claims that the recommendation
letters praise student rather than the petitioner’s professional work,
when the reverse is true.
Appellate Decision: AAO identifies the misapplied standards in the original
decision, and applied the NIW standards to re-evaluate the petitioner’s
impact on the field. The evidence of this establishment includes reprint
requests for the petitioners work from government agencies and those in the
agricultural industry. Based on this evaluation of the petitioner’s work,
AAO ruled that the petitioner meets the standard for a National Interest
Waiver.
Result of Appeal: The Appeal was sustained and the case was approved.
***********************************************************************
AAO Appeal Case No. 5
Case Type: NIW
Original Case: The original case provided several letters of recommendation
, including three letters from independent experts. These letters claim that
the petitioner has made a strong impact on the field of kidney stone
research, and that her significant contributions are beyond those of her
peers.
Initial Ruling: The USCIS denied the case on the grounds that the national
interest would not be adversely affected by a labor certification. The USCIS
stated that the overall importance of the petitioner’s field is
insufficient to establish that a labor certification would adversely affect
the national interest, and should thus be waived.
Appellate Ruling: The petitioner argued that the original letters of
recommendation were from respected experts in the field, including
independent references, and that the petitioner’s achievements had already
benefited the national interest. The petitioner submitted an additional
letter from one of her original recommenders, who claims that the petitioner
made “critical contributions” and “continues to play a key role in this
research.” AAO found that thirdy-party letters of recommendation served as
independent evidence to support the contention that the petitioner’s work
had made an impact outside of her circle of colleagues. AAO also found that
this is not the strongest possible case, largely on the basis that there is
no record of heavy citation, but that the evidence in its entirety is strong
enough to warrant approval of the petition.
Result of Appeal: The Appeal was sustained and the case was approved.
***********************************************************************
AAO Appeal Case No. 6
Case Type: I-140 NIW
Original Case: The petitioner/beneficiary had a PhD in Chemistry, and
submitted a number of letters of recommendation and copy of eleven
scientific articles he published in prestigious journals. The recommendation
letters emphasized the unique and groundbreaking nature of his work, and
one recommender called him “one of the top scientists in the world” in his
field of organic synthesis. The petitioner also submitted evidence that his
work had been cited 161 times worldwide.
Initial Ruling: The USCIS issued a request for additional evidence that the
petitioner met the standards published in Matter of New York State
Department of Transportation. The petitioner responded with a letter from
counsel, additional letters of recommendation, and further documentation of
his work. The USCIS denied the petition, stating that the petitioner failed
to prove that a waiver of the labor certification requirement was in the
national interest.
Appellate Ruling: AAO ruled that the extensive citation record is ample
evidence of the petitioner’s influential work.
Result of Appeal: The Appeal was sustained and the case was approved.
***********************************************************************
AAO Appeal Case No. 7
Case Type: NIW
Original Case: The petitioner/beneficiary has Ph.D. in thermal science. He
submitted a number of peer-reviewed papers and several letters of
recommendation, some of which were independent. The petitioner argued that
his work had actually established a fundamental theory of thermal science.
Initial Ruling: The USCIS denied the case on the grounds that the national
interest would not be adversely affected if a labor certification were
required. The USCIS argued that:
1. The evidence fell short of establishing the significance of the
petitioner’s contributions to the field;
2. The record lacked evidence that the petitioner’s work with his current
employer had been successfully commercialized;
3. The petitioner offered no evidence that his published articles had been
heavily cited.
Appellate Ruling: AAO gives more attention to the opinions of the
petitioner’s collaborators and supervisors who claim that the petitioner
was the major contributor to the projects reported in his published articles
. AAO also addresses the concern that the petitioner’s work with his
current employer had not been successfully commercialized, noting that the
petitioner had only worked for this company a short time. AAO ruled that
while evidence of heavy citation would be evidence in the petitioner’s
favor, it is not mandatory for a National Interest Waiver. AAO stresses the
importance of reviewing the totality of the evidence in reaching a
conclusion.
Result of Appeal: The Appeal was sustained and the case was approved.
*********************************************************************
刘宗坤律师（Z. Zac Liu, Esq.），法学博士（J.D., Valparaiso University School
of Law）、哲学博士(Ph.D., Peking University)，伊利诺伊州最高法院及联邦法院
执照，曾担任Valparaiso University Law Review的编辑和审稿人， 著有中英文书籍
多种，散见于中美各大学图书馆。执业以来，他已代理无数名来自世界各地的科研人员
和专业人士成功获得绿卡及各类非移民签证，尤其在国家利益豁免（NIW）、特殊人才
（Eb-1A）、杰出教授和研究员（EB-1B）、PERM 劳工证、H-1B工作签证等方面积累了
丰富的经验。读者若有移民法律问题，可将简历发往zliu@niwus.com。刘律师会在两个
工作日内对您的问题做出免费答复或评估。
白凯玲律师 (Kellie Pai, Esq.)，法学博士(J.D.，University of Houston Law
Center)、文学学士(B.A., University of Texas at Austin),德克萨斯州最高法院执
照，刘宗坤联合律师事务所专业移民律师。
Liu & Associates, PLLC
Wells Fargo Tower, 8th Floor
6161 Savoy Drive, Suite 830
Houston, Texas 77036
Tel： (800) 878-1807
(713) 974-3893
Fax: (866) 608-2766
Email: zliu@niwus.com
Website: www.niwus.com
|
