Matter of Dhanasar

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定第3882号

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

美国国土安全部 美国公民及移民服务局

Administrative Appeals Office

行政上诉办公室

USCIS may grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the job offer and labor certification requirements. Matter of New York State Dep’t of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. Comm’r 1998), vacated. ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Gerard M. Chapman, Esquire, Greensboro, North Carolina

如果申请人证明以下各项，USCIS可以授予国家利益豁免：(1) 该外国国民拟从事的事业既具有实质价值又具有国家重要性；(2) 其处于有利地位以推进拟从事的事业；以及 (3) 总体权衡，豁免工作邀请和劳工证要求将有利于美国。Matter of New York State Dep't of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. Comm'r 1998)，已撤销。 代表申请人：Gerard M. Chapman，律师，北卡罗来纳州格林斯伯勒

In this decision, we have occasion to revisit the analytical framework for assessing eligibility for “national interest waivers” under section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i) (2012). The self-petitioner, a researcher and educator in the field of aerospace engineering, filed an immigrant visa petition seeking classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Act as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner also sought a “national interest waiver” of the job offer otherwise required by section 203(b)(2)(A).

在本决定中，我们有机会重新审视根据《移民与国籍法》第203(b)(2)(B)(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i) (2012)，评估“国家利益豁免”资格的分析框架。自我申请人是一名航空航天工程领域的研究员和教育工作者，其提交了移民签证申请，寻求根据该法第203(b)(2)条被归类为持有高级学位的专业人士。申请人还寻求对第203(b)(2)(A)条原本要求的工作邀请给予“国家利益豁免”。

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition under the existing analytical framework, concluding that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that a waiver of the job offer requirement would not be in the national interest of the United States. Upon de novo review, and based on the revised national interest standard adopted herein, we will sustain the appeal and approve the petition.

德克萨斯服务中心主任根据现有分析框架拒绝了该申请，认定申请人符合持有高级学位的专业人士分类资格，但豁免工作邀请要求不会符合美国的国家利益。经重新审查，并基于本决定采用的修订国家利益标准，我们将维持上诉并批准该申请。

I. LEGAL BACKGROUND

一、法律背景

Subparagraph (A) of section 203(b)(2) of the Act makes immigrant visas 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

该法第203(b)(2)条(A)项规定，移民签证可提供给“属于持有高级学位或同等学历的专业人士，或因其在科学、艺术或商业方面的特殊才能，将前瞻性地实质性惠及国家经济、文化或教育

884

884

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定第3882号

interests, or welfare of the United States.” Under subparagraph (A), immigrant visas are available to such individuals only if their “services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United States.”

利益或美国福利的合格移民。”根据(A)项，移民签证仅在此类个人的“科学、艺术、专业或商业服务由美国雇主寻求”时方可提供给此类个人。

Before hiring a foreign national under this immigrant classification, an employer must first obtain a permanent labor certification from the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i) (2012). See also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i) (2016). A labor certification demonstrates that DOL has determined that there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed. In its labor certification application, the employer must list the position’s job requirements consistent with what is normally required for the occupation. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(h)(1) (2016). Moreover, the job requirements described on the labor certification application must represent the actual minimum requirements for the job opportunity. See 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(1). That is, the employer may not tailor the position requirements to the foreign worker’s qualifications; it may only list the position’s minimum requirements, regardless of the foreign worker’s additional skills that go beyond what is normally required for the occupation. The employer must then test the labor market to determine if able, willing, or qualified U.S. workers are available with the advertised minimum qualifications. If such U.S. workers are found, the employer may not hire the foreign worker for the position, even if the foreign worker clearly has more skills (beyond the advertised qualifications). If the employer does not identify such U.S. workers and DOL determines that those workers are indeed unavailable, DOL will certify the labor certification. After securing the DOL-approved labor certification, the employer may then file a petition with DHS requesting the immigrant classification.

在此移民分类下雇用外国国民之前，雇主必须首先根据该法第212(a)(5)(A)(i)条，8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A)(i) (2012)，从美国劳工部（“DOL”）获得永久劳工证。另见 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i) (2016)。劳工证表明DOL已认定，在外国人将从事此类熟练或非熟练劳动的地点，没有足够能够、愿意、合格且可用的工人，且雇用该外国人不会对类似受雇的美国工人的工资和工作条件产生不利影响。在劳工证申请中，雇主必须列出该职位的职位要求，且须符合该职业通常要求。见 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(h)(1) (2016)。此外，劳工证申请中描述的职位要求必须代表该工作机会的实际最低要求。见 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)(1)。也就是说，雇主不得根据外国工人的资格量身定制职位要求；其只能列出职位的最低要求，无论外国工人具备超出该职业通常要求的额外技能。雇主随后必须测试劳动力市场，以确定是否有具备所公布最低资格的能够、愿意或合格的美国工人可用。如果找到此类美国工人，雇主不得雇用外国工人担任该职位，即使外国工人明显拥有更多技能（超出所公布资格）。如果雇主未识别出此类美国工人，且DOL认定此类工人确实不可用，DOL将认证劳工证。在获得DOL批准的劳工证后，雇主随后可向DHS提交申请，请求该移民分类。

Under subparagraph (B) of section 203(b)(2), however, the Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the requirement of a “job offer” (namely, that the beneficiary’s services are sought by a U.S. employer) and, under the applicable regulations, of “a labor certification.” 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii). 1 That subparagraph states, in pertinent part, that the

然而，根据第203(b)(2)条(B)项，国土安全部部长可以豁免“工作邀请”要求（即受益人的服务由美国雇主寻求），并根据适用法规豁免“劳工证”要求。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii)。1 该(B)项的相关部分规定，

1 While appearing to limit national interest waivers to only aliens possessing exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii) was superseded in part by section 302(b)(2) of the Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1743

1 尽管8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii)似乎将国家利益豁免仅限于在科学、艺术或商业方面具有特殊才能的外国人，但该规定部分被1991年《杂项和技术移民与归化修正案》第302(b)(2)条，Pub. L. No. 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733, 1743

(continued . . .)

（续……）

885

885

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定第3882号

Secretary “may, when the [Secretary] 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.”2 Section 203(b)(2)(i) of the Act.

部长“可以在[部长]认为符合国家利益时，豁免(A)项关于外国人在科学、艺术、专业或商业方面的服务须由美国雇主寻求的要求。”2 该法第203(b)(2)(i)条。

USCIS may grant a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion if the petitioner satisfies both subparagraphs (A) and (B). Thus, a petitioner who seeks a “national interest waiver” must first satisfy subparagraph (A) by demonstrating that the beneficiary qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(1)–(3) (providing definitions and considerations for making such determinations); see also section 203(b)(2)(C) of the Act (providing that possession of requisite academic degree or professional license “shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability”). The petitioner must then satisfy subparagraph (B) by establishing that it would be in the national interest to waive the “job offer” requirement under subparagraph (A). 3 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii). This two-part statutory scheme is relatively straightforward, but the term “national interest” is ambiguous. Undefined by statute and regulation, “national interest” is a broad concept subject to various interpretations.

如果申请人同时满足(A)项和(B)项，USCIS可以作为裁量事项授予国家利益豁免。因此，寻求“国家利益豁免”的申请人必须首先满足(A)项，证明受益人符合持有高级学位的专业人士或具有特殊才能的个人资格。见 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(1)–(3)（提供作出此类认定的定义和考虑因素）；另见该法第203(b)(2)(C)条（规定拥有所需学位或专业执照“本身不得被视为特殊才能的充分证据”）。申请人随后必须满足(B)项，证明豁免(A)项下的“工作邀请”要求将符合国家利益。3 见 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii)。这一两部分法定制度相对直接，但“国家利益”一词含义模糊。该词未由法规和条例定义，“国家利益”是一个宽泛的概念，可受各种解释。

In 1998, under the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service, we issued a precedent decision establishing a framework for evaluating national interest waiver petitions. Matter of New York State Dep’t of Transp. (“NYSDOT”), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. Comm’r 1998).

1998年，在前移民与归化局下，我们发布了一项先例决定，确立了评估国家利益豁免申请的分析框架。Matter of New York State Dep't of Transp.（“NYSDOT”），22 I&N Dec. 215 (Acting Assoc. Comm'r 1998)。

_______________________________ (“MTINA”). Section 302(b)(2) of MTINA amended section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act by inserting the word “professions” after the word “arts,” and thereby made the national interest waiver available to members of the professions holding advanced degrees in addition to individuals of exceptional ability. 2 Pursuant to section 1517 of the Homeland Security Act (“HSA”) of 2002, 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). 3 To do so, a petitioner must go beyond showing the individual’s expertise in a particular field. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines “exceptional ability” as “a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered” in a given area of endeavor. By statute, individuals of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his field of expertise.

_______________________________ （“MTINA”）所取代。MTINA第302(b)(2)条修订了该法第203(b)(2)(B)(i)条，在“艺术”一词后插入“专业”一词，从而使国家利益豁免除特殊才能个人外，也适用于持有高级学位的专业人士。 2 根据2002年《国土安全法》（“HSA”），Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2311（编纂于 6 U.S.C. § 557 (2012)）第1517条，该法条款中描述由HSA从司法部长或司法部其他官员转移至国土安全部的职能时，任何对司法部长的提及“应被视为指”国土安全部部长。另见 6 U.S.C. § 542 注 (2012)；8 U.S.C. § 1551 注 (2012)。 3 为此，申请人必须超出证明个人在特定领域的专长。8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2)将“特殊才能”定义为“在特定努力领域中显著高于通常遇到的专长程度”。根据法规，具有特殊才能的个人通常受工作邀请/劳工证要求约束；他们并不因特殊才能而豁免。因此，无论特定申请人寻求被归类为具有特殊才能的个人，还是作为持有高级学位的专业人士，该个人不能仅通过证明其专长程度显著高于其专长领域中通常遇到的专长程度而获得豁免资格。

886

886

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定第3882号

The NYSDOT framework looks first to see if a petitioner has shown that the area of employment is of “substantial intrinsic merit.” Id. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that any proposed benefit from the individual’s endeavors will be “national in scope.” Id. Finally, the petitioner must demonstrate that the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were required for the foreign national. Id.

NYSDOT框架首先查看申请人是否已证明就业领域具有“实质内在价值”。Id. at 217。其次，申请人必须证明个人努力所产生的任何拟议利益将是“全国范围”的。Id. 最后，申请人必须证明如果要求外国国民获得劳工证，国家利益将受到不利影响。Id.

Based on our experience with that decision in the intervening period, we believe it is now time for a reassessment. While the first prong has held up under adjudicative experience, the term “intrinsic” adds little to the analysis yet is susceptible to unnecessary subjective evaluation. 4 Similarly, the second prong has caused relatively few problems in adjudications, but occasionally the term “national in scope” is construed too narrowly by focusing primarily on the geographic impact of the benefit. While NYSDOT found a civil engineer’s employment to be national in scope even though it was limited to a particular region, that finding hinged on the geographic connections between New York’s bridges and roads and the national transportation system. Certain locally or regionally focused endeavors, however, may be of national importance despite being difficult to quantify with respect to geographic scope.

基于我们在其间对该决定的经验，我们认为现在是重新评估的时候了。虽然第一项要件在裁决经验中经受住了检验，但“内在”一词对分析几乎没有增加内容，却容易受到不必要的主观评价。4 同样，第二项要件在裁决中引起的问题相对较少，但“全国范围”一词偶尔被解释得过于狭窄，主要关注利益的地理影响。虽然NYSDOT认定一名土木工程师的就业属于全国范围，即使其仅限于特定地区，但该认定取决于纽约桥梁和道路与国家交通系统之间的地理联系。然而，某些以地方或区域为重点的努力可能具有国家重要性，尽管难以在地理范围方面量化。

What has generated the greatest confusion for petitioners and adjudicators, however, is NYSDOT’s third prong. First, this prong is explained in several different ways within NYSDOT itself, leaving the reader uncertain what ultimately is the relevant inquiry. We initially state the third prong as requiring a petitioner to “demonstrate that the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were required.” NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217. We then alternatively describe the third prong as requiring the petitioner to demonstrate that the individual “present[s] a national benefit so great as to outweigh the national interest inherent in the labor certification process.” Id. at 218. Immediately thereafter, we restate the third prong yet again: the petitioner must establish that the individual will “serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications.”5 Id. Finally, in what may be construed as either a fourth restatement of prong three or as an explanation of how to satisfy it, we state that “it clearly must be established that the alien’s past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest.” Id. at 219. A footnote

然而，给申请人和裁决者带来最大困惑的是NYSDOT的第三项标准。首先，该标准在NYSDOT本身中以几种不同的方式解释，使读者不确定最终的相关调查是什么。我们最初将第三项标准表述为要求申请人“证明如果要求劳工证，国家利益将受到不利影响”。NYSDOT，22 I&N Dec. at 217。然后，我们 alternatively 将第三项标准描述为要求申请人证明个人“呈现的国家利益如此之大，以至于超过劳工证过程中固有的国家利益”。Id. at 218。紧接着，我们再次重述第三项标准：申请人必须证明个人将“以比具有相同最低资格的可用美国工人大得多的程度服务于国家利益”。5 Id. 最后，在可能被解释为第三项标准的第四次重述或如何满足它的解释中，我们指出“必须明确确立外国人的过去记录证明对未来国家利益的预测是合理的”。Id. at 219。一个脚注

4 Cf., e.g., 24/7 Records, Inc. v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 571, 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (“‘Intrinsic value’ is an inherently subjective and speculative concept.”). 5 Other, slight variations of the third prong emerge later in the decision. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N at 220 (“to a greater extent than U.S. workers”); see also id. at 221 (“considerably outweigh”).

4 参见，例如，24/7 Records, Inc. v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 571, 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)（“‘内在价值’是一个本质上主观和推测性的概念。”）。 5 第三项标准的其他细微变化在决定后面出现。参见NYSDOT，22 I&N at 220（“比美国工人更大程度”）；另见Id. at 221（“大大超过”）。

887

887

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定 #3882

to this statement clarifies that USCIS seeks “a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole.” Id. at 219 n.6. Although residing in footnote 6, this “influence” standard has in practice become the primary yardstick against which petitions are measured.6

对该声明的脚注澄清，USCIS寻求“过去可证明成就的历史，并对整个领域有一定程度的影响”。Id. at 219 n.6。尽管位于脚注6中，这一“影响”标准在实践中已成为衡量申请的主要标准。6

Second, and a more fundamental challenge than parsing its several restatements, NYSDOT’s third prong can be misinterpreted to require the petitioner to submit, and the adjudicator to evaluate, evidence relevant to the very labor market test that the waiver is intended to forego. The first iteration of prong three, that the national interest would be adversely affected if a labor certification were required, implies that petitioners should submit evidence of harm to the national interest. The third iteration, that the individual will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications, suggests that petitioners should submit evidence comparing foreign nationals to unidentified U.S. workers. These concepts have proven to be difficult for many qualified individuals to establish or analyze in the abstract. It has proven particularly ill-suited for USCIS to evaluate petitions from self-employed individuals, such as entrepreneurs. In NYSDOT, we even “acknowledge[d] that there are certain occupations wherein individuals are essentially self-employed, and thus would have no U.S. employer to apply for a labor certification.” Id. at 218 n.5. Nonetheless, we did not modify the test to resolve this scenario, which continues to challenge petitioners and USCIS adjudicators. Lastly, this concept of harm-to-national-interest is not required by, and unnecessarily narrows, the Secretary’s broad discretionary authority to grant a waiver when he “deems it to be in the national interest.”

其次，比解析其几个重述更根本的挑战是，NYSDOT的第三项标准可能被误解为要求申请人提交，并裁决者评估与豁免旨在放弃的劳动力市场测试相关的证据。第三项标准的第一次迭代，即如果要求劳工证国家利益将受到不利影响，暗示申请人应提交对国家利益损害的证据。第三次迭代，即个人将以比具有相同最低资格的可用美国工人大得多的程度服务于国家利益，表明申请人应提交比较外国国民与未识别的美国工人的证据。这些概念已被证明对许多合格个人来说难以抽象地建立或分析。对于USCIS评估自雇人士（如企业家）的申请尤其不合适。在NYSDOT中，我们甚至“承认某些职业中个人基本上是自雇的，因此没有美国雇主可以申请劳工证”。Id. at 218 n.5。尽管如此，我们没有修改测试来解决这种情况，这继续挑战申请人和USCIS裁决者。最后，这种对国家利益损害的概念不是由部长在“认为符合国家利益”时授予豁免的广泛自由裁量权所要求的，并且不必要地缩小了该权力。

II. NEW ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

II. 新分析框架

Accordingly, our decision in NYSDOT is ripe for revision. Today, we vacate NYSDOT and adopt a new framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions, one that will provide greater clarity, apply more flexibly to circumstances of both petitioning employers and self-petitioning

因此，我们在NYSDOT中的决定是修订的成熟时机。今天，我们撤销NYSDOT并采用新框架来裁决国家利益豁免申请，该框架将提供更大的清晰度，更灵活地适用于申请雇主和自申请

6 While this “influence” standard rests upon the reasonable notion that past success will often predict future benefit, our adjudication experience in the years since NYSDOT has revealed that there are some talented individuals for whom past achievements are not necessarily the best or only predictor of future success.

6 虽然这一“影响”标准基于合理观念，即过去的成功往往预测未来的利益，但我们在NYSDOT之后几年的裁决经验表明，有些有才华的个人过去的成就未必是未来成功的最佳或唯一预测因素。

888

888

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定 #3882

individuals, and better advance the purpose of the broad discretionary waiver provision to benefit the United States.7

个人，并更好地推进广泛自由裁量豁免条款的目的，以造福美国。7

Under the new framework, and after eligibility for EB-2 classification has been established, USCIS may grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence:8 (1) that the foreign national’s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. If these three elements are satisfied, USCIS may approve the national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.9

在新框架下，并且在EB-2分类资格确立后，USCIS可以授予国家利益豁免，如果申请人通过优势证据证明：8 (1) 外国国民的提议努力具有实质价值和国家重要性；(2) 外国国民处于有利地位推进提议努力；以及(3) 总体而言，放弃工作offer要求从而放弃劳工证将有利于美国。如果满足这三个要素，USCIS可以酌情批准国家利益豁免。9

The first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake. The endeavor’s merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Evidence that the endeavor has the potential to create a significant economic impact may be favorable but is not required, as an endeavor’s merit may be established without immediate or quantifiable economic impact. For example, endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance of human knowledge may qualify, whether or not the potential accomplishments in those fields are likely to translate into economic benefits for the United States.

第一项标准，实质价值和国家重要性，关注外国国民提议从事的具体努力。努力的价值可以在商业、创业、科学、技术、文化、健康或教育等一系列领域展示。努力有潜力创造重大经济影响的证据可能是有利的，但不是必需的，因为努力的价值可以在没有立即或可量化经济影响的情况下确立。例如，与研究、纯科学和促进人类知识相关的努力可能符合条件，无论这些领域的潜在成就是否可能转化为美国的经济利益。

In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. An undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. But we do not evaluate prospective impact solely in geographic terms. Instead, we look for broader implications. Even ventures and undertakings that have as their focus one geographic area of the United States may properly be considered to have national importance. In modifying this prong to assess “national

在确定提议努力是否具有国家重要性时，我们考虑其潜在预期影响。一项事业可能具有国家重要性，例如，因为它在特定领域具有国家甚至全球影响，如某些改进制造过程或医学进步带来的影响。但我们不仅仅从地理角度评估预期影响。相反，我们寻找更广泛的影响。即使以美国一个地理区域为重点的企业和事业也可能被适当认为具有国家重要性。在修改这一标准以评估“国家

7 Going forward, we will use “petitioners” to include both employers who have filed petitions on behalf of employees and individuals who have filed petitions on their own behalf (namely, self-petitioners). 8 Under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, a petitioner must establish that he or she more likely than not satisfies the qualifying elements. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). We will consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id. 9 Because the national interest waiver is “purely discretionary,” Schneider v. Chertoff, 450 F.3d 944, 948 (9th Cir. 2006), the petitioner also must show that the foreign national otherwise merits a favorable exercise of discretion. See Zhu v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 292, 295 (D.C. Cir. 2005); cf. Matter of Jean, 23 I&N Dec. 373, 383 (A.G. 2002).

7 今后，我们将使用“申请人”包括代表员工提交申请的雇主和代表自己提交申请的个人（即自申请人）。 8 在“优势证据”标准下，申请人必须证明他或她更有可能满足资格要素。Matter of Chawathe，25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010)。我们将考虑证据的数量和质量（包括相关性、证明价值和可信度）。Id. 9 因为国家利益豁免是“纯粹自由裁量的”，Schneider v. Chertoff，450 F.3d 944, 948 (9th Cir. 2006)，申请人还必须表明外国国民在其他方面值得有利行使自由裁量权。参见Zhu v. Gonzales，411 F.3d 292, 295 (D.C. Cir. 2005)；参见Matter of Jean，23 I&N Dec. 373, 383 (A.G. 2002)。

889

889

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定 #3882

importance” rather than “national in scope,” as used in NYSDOT, we seek to avoid overemphasis on the geographic breadth of the endeavor. An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance.

重要性”而不是NYSDOT中使用的“国家范围”，我们寻求避免过度强调努力的地理广度。例如，一项有显著潜力雇用美国工人或具有其他实质性积极经济影响的努力，特别是在经济萧条地区，很可能被理解为具有国家重要性。

The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national. To determine whether he or she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, but not limited to: the individual’s education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals.

第二项标准将焦点从提议努力转移到外国国民。为了确定他或她是否处于有利地位推进提议努力，我们考虑因素包括但不限于：个人的教育、技能、知识和在相关或类似努力中的成功记录；未来活动的模型或计划；实现提议努力的任何进展；以及潜在客户、用户、投资者或其他相关实体或个人的兴趣。

We recognize that forecasting feasibility or future success may present challenges to petitioners and USCIS officers, and that many innovations and entrepreneurial endeavors may ultimately fail, in whole or in part, despite an intelligent plan and competent execution. We do not, therefore, require petitioners to demonstrate that their endeavors are more likely than not to ultimately succeed. But notwithstanding this inherent uncertainty, in order to merit a national interest waiver, petitioners must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor.

我们认识到预测可行性或未来成功可能给申请人和USCIS官员带来挑战，并且许多创新和创业努力尽管有明智计划和胜任执行，最终可能全部或部分失败。因此，我们不要求申请人证明他们的努力更有可能最终成功。但尽管存在这种固有不确定性，为了值得国家利益豁免，申请人必须通过优势证据证明他们处于有利地位推进提议努力。

The third prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. On the one hand, Congress clearly sought to further the national interest by requiring job offers and labor certifications to protect the domestic labor supply. On the other hand, by creating the national interest waiver, Congress recognized that in certain cases the benefits inherent in the labor certification process can be outweighed by other factors that are also deemed to be in the national interest. Congress entrusted the Secretary to balance these interests within the context of individual national interest waiver adjudications.

第三项标准要求申请人证明，总体而言，放弃工作offer要求从而放弃劳工证将有利于美国。一方面，国会显然寻求通过要求工作offer和劳工证来保护国内劳动力供应，以促进国家利益。另一方面，通过创建国家利益豁免，国会认识到在某些情况下，劳工证过程中固有的利益可能被其他也被视为符合国家利益的因素所超过。国会委托部长在个别国家利益豁免裁决的背景下平衡这些利益。

In performing this analysis, USCIS may evaluate factors such as: whether, in light of the nature of the foreign national’s qualifications or proposed endeavor, it would be impractical either for the foreign national to secure a job offer or for the petitioner to obtain a labor certification;10

在进行这一分析时，USCIS可以评估因素如：鉴于外国国民资格或提议努力的性质，外国国民获得工作offer或申请人获得劳工证是否不切实际；10

10 For example, the labor certification process may prevent a petitioning employer from hiring a foreign national with unique knowledge or skills that are not easily articulated in a labor certification. See generally 20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i). Likewise, because of the nature of the proposed endeavor, it may be impractical for an entrepreneur or

10 例如，劳工证过程可能阻止申请雇主雇用具有独特知识或技能的外国国民，这些知识或技能不易在劳工证中阐明。参见一般20 C.F.R. § 656.17(i)。同样，由于提议努力的性质，企业家或

(continued . . .)

（续...）

890

890

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定 #3882

whether, even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available, the United States would still benefit from the foreign national’s contributions; and whether the national interest in the foreign national’s contributions is sufficiently urgent to warrant forgoing the labor certification process. We emphasize that, in each case, the factor(s) considered must, taken together, indicate that on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification.

即使假设其他合格美国工人可用，美国是否仍会受益于该外国国民的贡献；以及该外国国民贡献中的国家利益是否足够紧迫，以致值得放弃劳工证程序。我们强调，在每一个案件中，所考虑的因素必须综合表明，总体而言，放弃工作邀请要求并因此放弃劳工证对美国有利。

We note that this new prong, unlike the third prong of NYSDOT, does not require a showing of harm to the national interest or a comparison against U.S. workers in the petitioner’s field. As stated previously, NYSDOT’s third prong was especially problematic for certain petitioners, such as entrepreneurs and self-employed individuals. This more flexible test, which can be met in a range of ways as described above, is meant to apply to a greater variety of individuals.

我们注意到，这一新分项与NYSDOT第三分项不同，不要求证明对国家利益造成损害，也不要求与申请人所在领域的美国工人进行比较。如前所述，NYSDOT第三分项对某些申请人（如企业家和自雇人士）尤其成问题。这一更灵活的标准可通过上述多种方式满足，旨在适用于更多种类的个人。

III. ANALYSIS

三、分析

The director found the petitioner to be qualified for the classification sought by virtue of his advanced degrees. We agree that he holds advanced degrees and therefore qualifies under section 203(b)(2)(A). The remaining issue before us is whether the petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is eligible for and merits a national interest waiver.

主任认定申请人凭借其高级学位符合所寻求的分类资格。我们同意其持有高级学位，因此符合第203(b)(2)(A)条。我们面前剩余的问题是，申请人是否以优势证据证明其有资格且理应获得国家利益豁免。

The petitioner proposes to engage in research and development relating to air and space propulsion systems, as well as to teach aerospace engineering, at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (“North Carolina A&T”). The petitioner holds two master of science degrees, in mechanical engineering and in applied physics, as well as a Ph.D. in engineering, from North Carolina A&T. At the time of filing the instant petition, he also worked as a postdoctoral research associate at the university. The record reflects that the petitioner’s graduate and postgraduate research has focused on hypersonic propulsion systems (systems involving propulsion at speeds of Mach 5 and above) and on computational fluid dynamics. He has developed a validated computational model of a high-speed air-breathing propulsion engine, as well as a novel numerical method for accurately calculating hypersonic air flow. The petitioner intends to continue his research at the university.

申请人拟在北卡罗来纳农业与技术州立大学（“North Carolina A&T”）从事与航空和航天推进系统相关的研究与开发，并教授航空航天工程。申请人持有北卡罗来纳农业与技术州立大学机械工程和应用物理学两个理学硕士学位，以及工程学博士学位。在提交本申请时，他还在该大学担任博士后研究助理。记录显示，申请人的研究生和博士后研究集中于高超声速推进系统（涉及马赫5及以上速度推进的系统）和计算流体动力学。他开发了一个经过验证的高速吸气式推进发动机计算模型，以及一种用于精确计算高超声速气流的新颖数值方法。申请人打算继续在该大学进行研究。

The extensive record includes: reliable evidence of the petitioner’s credentials; copies of his publications and other published materials that

大量记录包括：申请人资历的可靠证据；其出版物和其他已发表材料的副本，这些材料

_______________________________ self-employed inventor, when advancing an endeavor on his or her own, to secure a job offer from a U.S. employer.

_______________________________ 自雇发明人，在自行推进一项事业时，从美国雇主处获得工作邀请。

891

891

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定 #3882

cite his work; evidence of his membership in professional associations; and documentation regarding his research and teaching activities. The petitioner also submitted several letters from individuals who establish their own expertise in aerospace, describe the petitioner’s research in detail and attest to his expertise in the field of hypersonic propulsion systems.

引用其工作；其专业协会会员资格的证据；以及关于其研究和教学活动的文件。申请人还提交了几封来自个人的信件，这些个人确立了自身在航空航天领域的专业知识，详细描述了申请人的研究，并证明其在髙超声速推进系统领域的专业知识。

We determine that the petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver under the new framework. First, we conclude that the petitioner has established both the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed endeavor. The petitioner demonstrated that he intends to continue research into the design and development of propulsion systems for potential use in military and civilian technologies such as nano-satellites, rocket-propelled ballistic missiles, and single-stage-to-orbit vehicles. In letters supporting the petition, he describes how research in this area enhances our national security and defense by allowing the United States to maintain its advantage over other nations in the field of hypersonic flight. We find that this proposed research has substantial merit because it aims to advance scientific knowledge and further national security interests and U.S. competitiveness in the civil space sector.

我们认定申请人根据新框架有资格获得国家利益豁免。首先，我们得出结论，申请人已证明其拟议事业具有实质价值和国家重要性。申请人证明他打算继续研究推进系统的设计和开发，以潜在用于军事和民用技术，如纳米卫星、火箭推进弹道导弹和单级入轨飞行器。在支持申请的信件中，他描述了该领域的研究如何通过使美国在高超声速飞行领域保持对其他国家的优势来增强我们的国家安全和国防。我们认定这一拟议研究具有实质价值，因为它旨在推进科学知识，并促进国家安全利益和美国在民用太空领域的竞争力。

The record further demonstrates that the petitioner’s proposed endeavor is of national importance. The petitioner submitted probative expert letters from individuals holding senior positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests. He also provided media articles and other evidence documenting the interest of the House Committee on Armed Services in the development of hypersonic technologies and discussing the potential significance of U.S. advances in this area of research and development. The letters and the media articles discuss efforts and advances that other countries are currently making in the area of hypersonic propulsion systems and the strategic importance of U.S. advancement in researching and developing these technologies for use in missiles, satellites, and aircraft.

记录进一步表明，申请人的拟议事业具有国家重要性。申请人提交了来自学术界、政府和工业界担任高级职位的个人的有证明力的专家信，描述了高超声速推进研究与美国战略利益相关的重要性。他还提供了媒体文章和其他证据，记录了众议院军事委员会对高超声速技术开发的兴趣，并讨论了美国在这一研究与发展领域的进展的潜在意义。这些信件和媒体文章讨论了其他国家目前在高超声速推进系统领域所做的努力和取得的进展，以及美国在研究开发这些技术用于导弹、卫星和飞机方面的战略重要性。

Second, we find that the record establishes that the petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. Beyond his multiple graduate degrees in relevant fields, the petitioner has experience conducting research and developing computational models that support the mission of the United States Department of Defense (“DOD”) to develop air superiority and protection capabilities of U.S. military forces, and that assist in the development of platforms for Earth observation and interplanetary exploration. The petitioner submitted detailed expert letters describing U.S. Government interest and investment in his research, and the record includes documentation that the petitioner played a significant role in projects funded by grants from the National Aeronautics and Space

其次，我们认定记录表明申请人处于有利地位，能够推进拟议事业。除了在相关领域的多个研究生学位外，申请人还具有开展研究和开发计算模型的经验，这些模型支持美国国防部（“DOD”）发展空中优势和保护美国军事力量能力的使命，并有助于开发地球观测和行星际探索平台。申请人提交了详细的专家信，描述了美国政府对其研究的兴趣和投资，记录中还包括文件证明申请人在由国家航空航天和

892

892

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定 #3882

Administration (“NASA”) and the Air Force Research Laboratories (“AFRL”) within DOD. 11 Thus, the significance of the petitioner’s research in his field is corroborated by evidence of peer and government interest in his research, as well as by consistent government funding of the petitioner’s research projects. The petitioner’s education, experience, and expertise in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from government entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology research.

航天局（“NASA”）和国防部内的空军研究实验室（“AFRL”）资助的项目中发挥了重要作用。11 因此，申请人在其领域研究的重要性得到了同行和政府对研究兴趣的证据以及政府对申请人研究项目持续资助的佐证。申请人的教育、经验和在其领域的专业知识，其在研究项目中的重要角色，以及NASA和AFRL等政府实体的持续兴趣和资助，使他处于有利地位，能够继续推进其拟议的高超声速技术研究事业。

Third and finally, we conclude that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. As noted above, the petitioner holds three graduate degrees in fields tied to the proposed endeavor, and the record demonstrates that he possesses considerable experience and expertise in a highly specialized field. The evidence also shows that research on hypersonic propulsion holds significant implications for U.S. national security and competitiveness. In addition, the repeated funding of research in which the petitioner played a key role indicates that government agencies, including NASA and the DOD, have found his work on this topic to be promising and useful. Because of his record of successful research in an area that furthers U.S. interests, we find that this petitioner offers contributions of such value that, on balance, they would benefit the United States even assuming that other qualified U.S. workers are available.

第三也是最后，我们得出结论，总体而言，放弃工作邀请要求并因此放弃劳工证对美国有利。如上所述，申请人持有三个与拟议事业相关领域的研究生学位，记录表明他在高度专业化的领域拥有丰富的经验和专业知识。证据还表明，高超声速推进研究对美国国家安全和竞争力具有重大影响。此外，对申请人发挥关键作用的研究的反复资助表明，包括NASA和DOD在内的政府机构认为他在这方面的研究有前景且有用。由于他在促进美国利益的领域成功研究的记录，我们认定这位申请人提供的贡献具有如此价值，以致总体而言，即使假设其他合格美国工人可用，他们也会使美国受益。

In addition to conducting research, the petitioner proposes to support teaching activities in science, technology, engineering, and math (“STEM”) disciplines. He submits letters favorably attesting to his teaching abilities at the university level and evidence of his participation in mentorship programs for middle school students. While STEM teaching has substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, the record does not indicate by a preponderance of the evidence that the petitioner would be engaged in activities that would impact the field of STEM education more broadly. Accordingly, as the petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that his proposed teaching activities meet the “national importance” element of the first prong of the new framework, we do not address the remaining prongs in relation to the petitioner’s teaching activities.

除了进行研究外，申请人还提议支持科学、技术、工程和数学（“STEM”）学科的教学活动。他提交了有利证明其大学水平教学能力的信件，以及参与中学生导师计划的证据。虽然STEM教学相对于美国教育利益具有实质价值，但记录并未以优势证据表明申请人将从事会对更广泛的STEM教育领域产生影响的活动。因此，由于申请人未以优势证据证明其拟议教学活动满足新框架第一分项的“国家重要性”要素，我们不针对申请人的教学活动处理其余分项。

11 Although the director of North Carolina A&T’s Center for Aerospace Research (“CAR”) is listed as the lead principal investigator on all grants for CAR research, the record establishes that the petitioner initiated or is the primary award contact on several funded grant proposals and that he is the only listed researcher on many of the grants.

11 尽管北卡罗来纳农业与技术州立大学航空航天研究中心（“CAR”）主任被列为所有CAR研究资助的首席研究员，但记录表明申请人是几个资助拨款提案的发起人或主要奖项联系人，并且他是许多资助中唯一列出的研究人员。

893

893

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) Interim Decision #3882

引用为 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) 临时决定 #3882

The record demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the petitioner’s research in aerospace engineering has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the petitioner is well positioned to advance his research; and (3) on balance, it is beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. We find that the petitioner has established eligibility for and otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.

记录以优势证据表明：（1）申请人在航空航天工程领域的研究既具有实质价值又具有国家重要性；（2）申请人处于有利地位，能够推进其研究；以及（3）总体而言，放弃工作邀请要求并因此放弃劳工证对美国有利。我们认定申请人已确立资格，并作为自由裁量事项理应获得国家利益豁免。

In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner’s burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 (2012). The petitioner has met that burden. ORDER: The appeal is sustained and the petition is approved.

在签证申请程序中，申请人有责任确立所寻求移民利益的资格。该法第291条，8 U.S.C. § 1361 (2012)。申请人已履行该责任。命令：上诉获支持，申请获批准。

894

894