dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Bilingual Education

(b)(6)
DATE: JUL 3 1 2015 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizens hip and Immi grat ion Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Office 
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 Immigrati on 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case . 
If you believe we incorr ectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requir ements for motions are located at 8 C.P.R . § 103.5. 
Motion s must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision . Th e Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) cont ains the latest information on fee, filing 
location , and other requir ements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO. 
Thank you, 
J~:::~~t r a tive Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding the equivalent of an 
advanced degree . The petitioner seeks employment as a bilingual French educator. At the time of 
filing, the petitioner was working as Assistant Head French Curriculum Program Coordinator at the 
. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the 
United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the 
professions with progressive post~baccalaureate experience equivalent to an advanced degree, but 
that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be 
in the national interest of the United States . 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief in which she alleges that the director abused his discretion in 
denying the petition by disregarding her prior achievements. 
I. LAW 
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 welfar e 
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) .. . 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 . 
The director denied the petition based on the finding that the petitioner had not established that a waiver 
of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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." In re New York State Dept 
ofTransportation, 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 establish that she seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. I d. at 217. 
Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. ld. Finally, the 
petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that 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. 
The petitioner has established that her work as a bilingual French educator is in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit and that the proposed benefits of her development of teaching seminars for 
, a network of French-American and international schools , would be national in 
scope. 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. 
Although the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the pettttoner must 
establish her past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. Jd. at 219. The 
petitioner's subjective assurance that she will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used here to require 
future contributions by the petitioner, rather than to facilitate the entry of an individual with no 
demonstrable prior achievements , and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. !d. 
Furthermore, eligibility for the waiver must rest with the petitioner's own qualifications rather than 
with the position sought. Assertions regarding the overall importance of a petitioner 's area of 
expertise cannot suffice to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. !d. at 220. At issue is 
whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such significance that she merits the special 
benefit of a national interest waiver, a benefit separate and distinct from the visa classific ation she 
seeks. A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence 
on the field as a whole. !d. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner 's achievements , original 
innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. !d. at 221, n. 7. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The petitioner filed the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form I-140) on March 10, 2014. The 
director determined that petitioner's influence on her field did not satisfy the third prong of the 
NYSDOT national interest analysis. 
In addition to her academic records, her professional credentials, and information reflecting the value 
of bilingual education, the petitioner submitted three letters of support from , Head of 
School at the In his initial letter dated March 7, 2014, Mr. stated: 
(b)(6)
NON-PR ECEDEN T DECISION 
Page 4 
[The petitioner] first joined in September 2001 and has played 
since then at our 
institution and in bilingual education as a whole. 
extraordinary bilingual educator who has served in many capacities at 
years as French Curriculum Program Coordinator 
(Assistant Head). 
an important role 
She is an 
, including two 
With regard to the petitioner ' s work as a teacher and French Curriculum Progr am Coordin ator at the 
she has not shown that the impact of her work as an educator extends beyond the stud ents at 
the school or has otherwise affected the field as a whole. We note that NYSDOT , 22 I&N Dec. at 
217, n.3 speci fically identifies a schoolt eacher as an example of a meritorious occupation that lacks 
the required national imp act for purposes of waiving the job offer requirement of section 
203(b )(2)(B) of the Act. 
further stated: 
[The petitioner 's] exceptional pedagogical skills have been recognized not only by 
but by the an international consortium of French-American and 
International schools in the U.S. and Canada. . . . Through the 
[the petition er] has contributed to international teaching seminars on Assessing Oral 
Language, Developing Reading Comprehension Strategies, Improving Problem-Solv ing 
Skills, and Implementing the Scientific Method in the Lower School . She has also 
contributed to bilingu al education endeavors in many other ways , not only at , but 
also at other institutions around the world, including in Europ e and Africa. 
Mr. asserted that the petitioner "has contributed to international teaching seminars on 
Assessing Oral Language, Developing Reading Comprehension Strategies, Improving Problem­
Solving Skills , and Implementing the Scientific Method, " but the petitioner did not submit 
documentary evidence of any of the seminar course materials that she created, authored, or 
copyrighted. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not suffici ent for 
purpo ses of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matt er of Soffi ci, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) (citing Matt er of Treasure Craft of California , 14 l&N Dec. 190 (Reg ' l 
Comm 'r 1972)). Regardle ss, there is no evidence showing that the petition er' s semina r materials 
have altered how French is being taught nationally or have otherwise influenc ed the field as a whole. 
In addition, while Mr. asserts that the petitioner has "contributed to bilingual education 
ende avors in many other ways ... at other institutions around the world , including in Europ e and 
Africa ," he did not identify the other institutions or the ways in which the petitioner ' s work for them 
has influenced the field as a whole. 
Mr. continu ed: 
[The petitioner ' s] extr aordinary ability directly contributes to the improved academic 
outcomes, skill development, and increased brain health shown by recognized research to 
benefit the lives of individual students, the educational system, and the health and well-being 
of U.S. citizens. The body of research on this subject is well establi shed and includes 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
findings that immersion programs such as the one to which [the petitioner] contributes 
improve the performance of English-speaking students compared to their monolingual peers, 
including enhancing reading and math skills. Other findings show that bilingualism results in 
increased ability to observe and manage non-verbal cues , giving such students an advantage 
in resolving conflict. 
While developing bilingual immersion programs meets the "substantial intrinsic merit" prong of 
NYSDOT' s national interest analysis, it is not alone sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the 
national interest waiver. General information regarding the importance of a given field of endeavor 
cannot by itself establish that an individual benefits the national interest by virtue of engaging in the 
field. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217. We do not dispute the importance of bilingual education in 
our nation's schools. At issue in this matter, however, is whether the petitioner's individual 
contributions in the field are of such significance that she merits the special benefit of a national 
interest waiver. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted additional letters from Mr. 
. In his letter dated October 14, 2014, Mr. stated that the petitioner "has contributed to 
the success of in a number of positions, including as a Preschool Teacher (3 years) , Resource 
Librarian (3 years), Grade 3 Teacher ( 4 years), and Assistant Head of French Curriculum (2 years)," 
but did not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole. 
In his letter dated October 16, 2014, Mr. stated: "[The petitioner] contributed to the national 
development of bilingual French-English education through developing education tools and 
collecting data for national organizations such as the " The petitioner, 
however, did not submit any documentary evidence showing that her education tools have 
measurably improved student performance nationally, that the data she collected has influenced the 
field of bilingual education, or that her work has otherwise affected the field as a whole. Mr. 
also mentioned the petitioner ' s "unique understanding in the field of bilingual education for special 
needs students" and that she developed and shared her understanding "through collaboration with 
bilingual French-English schools throughout the country. " Mr. however, did not identify the 
schools, discuss the specific ways in which "the rewards of her expertise are reaped by bilingual 
students and teachers nationwide," or provide actual examples of how the petitioner's work with 
special needs students has otherwise influenced the field of French bilingual education as a whole. 
Lastly, Mr. stated that the petitioner 's pedagogical techniques have contributed to the growth 
and well-being of ' students, but there is no documentary evidence to support his assertion 
that "students throughout the United States ... are influenced by [the petitioner's] teaching , and the 
curriculum tools she has developed." Again, going on record without supporting documentary 
evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter 
of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. In addition, USCIS need not rely on unsubstantiated statements. See 
1756, Inc. v. US Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 1990) (holding that an agency need not 
credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits adjudications); see also Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d 
at 134-35 (upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to uncorroborated assertions from 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
practitioners in the field). The petitioner has not submitted any documentary evidence showing that 
the impact of her work for and is indicative of her influenc e on the 
field as a whole . 
The petitioner submitted a letter from , North Americ an Pedagogic al Coordin ator for 
. stating that the petitioner "organized with efficiency " training sessions 
that Ms. presented for teachers from Seattle and from Portland. While the petitioner 
efficiently organized the aforementioned training sessions, the petitioner has not shown that her 
administrati ve duties for Ms. regional workshops were indicative of influence on the field 
as a whole. There is no documentary evidence demonstrating that the petitioner ' s wor k for Ms. 
had an impact beyond the workshops' trainees. 
Ms . further stated that the petitioner "collaborated with teachers and division heads from the 
North-American network on many projects," "developed assessment tools ," and collected research 
data, but did not provide specific examples of how the petitioner 's work has influenced the field as a 
whole. For example, Ms. did not identify the specific assessment tools that the petitioner 
developed or explain how they have affected bilingual teaching practices throughout the field. There is 
no documentary evidence showing that the petitioner 's work has impacted student achievement 
nationally or has otherwise influenced the field of bilingual French education as a whole. 
Finally , Ms. asserted that the petitioner's "knowledge and use of technology, as well as her 
knowledge of bilingual schools have helped our North-American network to thrive. " An y assertion 
that the petitioner possesses useful skills , or a "unique background" relates to whether similarly­
trained workers are available in the United States and is an issue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. 
Department of Labor through the labor certification process. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
The petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, 745 F. Supp. at 17. In addition, uncorroborated 
assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia, 4 F.Supp.3d at 134-35; Matter of Caron Int ·z, Inc., 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm ' r 1988) (holding that an agency "may , in its discretion , use as advisor y 
opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony ," but is ultim ately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the bene fit sought and "is not 
required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionabl e"). The 
submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
users may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the beneficiary 's 
eligibility. !d. See also Matt er of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert 
opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). As the submitted referenc e letters 
did not demonstr ate that the petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole , they do not 
demonstrate her eligibility for the nation al interest waiver. 
The petitioner's academic records, twelve years of occupational experience, and professional teaching 
certifications are factors that can contribute toward a finding of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. 
(b)(6)
NON -PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (B), and (C). However, in this instance the petitioner already qualifies as a 
member of the professions with progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to an advanced 
degree. We note that 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. 
Pursuant to section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the 
job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218, 222. Therefore, whether a given individual seeks classification as an 
alien 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 her field of expertise. The national interest waiver is an additional 
benefit, separate from the classification sought, and therefore eligibility for the underlying 
classification does not demonstrate eligibility for the additional benefit of the waiver. Without 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work has affected the field as a whole, employment in a 
beneficial occupation such as a bilingual French educator, therefore, does not by itself qualify the 
petitioner for the national interest waiver. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We concur with the director's decision and find that the direcotor did not abuse his discretion in 
denying the petition. Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, the record does not 
establish that the petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole or that she will otherwise serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the 
same minimum qualifications. 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every'advanced degree 
professional or alien of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based 
on national interest. The petitioner has not shown that her past record of achievement is at a level 
sufficient to waive the job offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa 
classification sought by the petitioner. Although the petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the 
scale of national acclaim, the petitioner must have "a past history of demonstrable achievement with 
some degree of influence on the field as a whole." NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219 , n.6. On the basis 
of the evidence submitted , the pet~tioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of an 
approved labor certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent 
and alternate basis for the decision. 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; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.