dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE:DEC 2 9 2014 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA 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. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
r-t��!trative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The petitioner appealed the matter to the Administrative Appeals Office, and we dismissed the 
appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. We will grant the motion and affirm our 
prior decision. 
The petitioner filed Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on December 17, 2012, seeking 
classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability in business and as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a business development manager. 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 denied the petition on October 11, 2013, 
having found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as an alien of exceptional ability in business 
and as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but not for the exemption from the job 
offer requirement. We dismissed the petitioner's appeal on July 2, 2014, affirming the director's 
finding regarding the national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, and withdrawing the 
director's fmding that the petitioner qualifies for the underlying immigrant classification. Further 
details regarding the proceeding appear in our July 2014 decision. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state 
the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that 
the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCI S policy. A motion to reconsider a 
decision on an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion 
that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
On Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, the petitioner indicated that her latest filing is a motion 
to reopen. Examination of the filing, however, indicates that it is both a motion to reopen and a motion 
to reconsider. The motion includes new evidence in the form of an undated letter from 
but the motion also includes a statement from the petitioner in which she contests elements of 
the appellate decision. These assertions amount to a motion to reconsider, the purpose of which is to 
contest the correctness of the original decision based on the previously established factual record. The 
petitioner has not established that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time 
of our initial decision, and therefore, if the petitioner had filed the motion as a motion to reconsider, we 
would have dismissed the motion. 
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 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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) ... 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. 
As noted above, the July 2014 appellate decision included three separate and independent findings, 
indicating that the petitioner had not established eligibility for: (1) the national interest waiver; (2) 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability; and (3) classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner's motion addresses only the first of these findings. 
In reNew York State Dep't of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. 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. !d. 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. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to require future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. !d. 
When she filed the petition, the petitioner stated: 
My work in the field of business development [and] strategy execution provides 
innovative solutions for businesses to grow. Throughout my professional career, I 
have consistently broken new ground and outperformed my peers. In addition to that 
[I] have a profound expertise in the financial mechanisms and regulations of the 
European Union which is a very unique skills set combination virtually impossible to 
be replaced. 
The petitioner submitted letters from individuals who had worked with her in various capacities. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
In response to a June 3, 2013 request for evidence, the petitioner stated that, as a student in the 
Program for Leadership Development at she studied under Dr. 
� "the inventor of the Balanced Scorecard," described as a "unique strategy managem ent 
tool." In our dismissal notice, we stated: 
The petitioner did not claim to have developed the [Balanced Scorecard] method. An 
alien's job-related training in a new method, whatever its importance, cannot be 
considered to be an achievement or contribution comparable to the innovation of that 
new method. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221 n.7. Special or unusual knowledge or 
training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. The issue of whether 
similarly-trained workers are available in the U. S. is an issue under the jurisdiction of 
the Department of Labor. /d. at 221. Furthermore .. . [the petitioner's] assertions 
indicate that the balanced scorecard is already in widespread use in the United States. 
We also noted that, while the petitioner claimed "several hundred" media stories regarding her work, 
she provided no evidence to support this claim. 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. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 
14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The director denied the petition on October 11, 2013, stating that the petitioner had submitted 
insufficient evidence and information to warrant approval of the petition. The director 
acknowledged the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's occupation, and found that the benefit can be 
national in scope, but the director concluded that the petitioner had not met the third prong of the 
NYSD OT national interest test, concerning the petitioner's impact on her field. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserted that she "completed the most prestigious program in the world for 
business minds with leadership potential at ' The etitioner stated: "My 
services in a highly sought-after area of business were preferred by WA based US 
employer. I was chosen over big consulting companies because of the novelty of the approach in 
developing Balanced Scorecards." 
president and chief executive officer of stated in a letter: "The process of 
developing effective Balanced Scorecard has some particular steps known to evidently a very few in the 
consulting circles .. .. The search for a consultant took significant time." The appeal also included a 
copy of a September article, ' 
which stated that "the balanced scorecard[] was being used in about 57 percent of 
international companies by 2004." 
The petitioner submitted additional letters, but we found that these materials lacked both detail and 
independent corroboration. We further stated: 
(b)(6)
PageS 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The petitioner has identified some of the projects on which she has worked, but she 
has not documented the extent to which her involvement has shaped or improved the 
outcome of those projects. Evidence about the balanced scorecard indicates that the 
method is already in widespread use. Furthermore, the petitioner did not create or 
improve the method, and therefore evidence about the balanced scorecard is not 
evidence of the petitioner's impact or influence on the field. Her familiarity with the 
method is not, itself, evidence of eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
On motion, the petitioner states: 
My years of expertise and in-depth and specialized knowledge about very specific fields 
and industries, as well as my hands-on experience in handling strategic business issues, 
makes me a unique and invaluable contributor in many areas .. .. 
l have repeatedly demonstrated an elite and unique proficiency when it comes to 
creating, crafting, and honing businesses' abilities to compete and remain viable going 
concerns. Dr. Balanced Score Card has improved the direction of many 
businesses around the globe (e.g. 100% revenue increase, 300% 
ROI, doubled sales and doubled employee engagement in the span of three years). 
The petitioner does not claim to have been involved with 
_ 
Instead, she appears to 
have cited the company as an example of successful application of the Balanced Scorecard. We 
addressed this issue in our prior decision. Whatever the merits of the Balanced Scorecard, the petitioner 
is not the originator of that method. Her familiarity with a method that someone else created, and which 
is already in widespread use independent of the petitioner's involvement, is not grounds for a national 
interest waiver. 
The petitioner continues: 
In addition to the example provided above, my work at ... led to optimization of 
business processes which resulted in consecutive 25% operational cost savings in 
a mere ten months after project implementation. The most dramatic change was the 
addition of twenty new employees hired at the company for the same time frame .... 
The processes we developed positioned to become a third party benefits 
administrator with influence national in scope which, given Health Care reform, has 
fast-tracked for national expansion. 
My approach is very s ecific and tailored strictly to my clients' needs; it combines the 
methods of Professor with the most recent revolutionary method of 
Professor ... This combined approach has never been 
implemented before and I pride myself in inventing and being the first to implement it! 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
The petitioner's motion includes a second copy of previously submitted letter, which 
does not include any of the information quoted above and therefore does not substantiate the petitioner's 
claims on motion. The petitioner's unsupported claims cannot meet her burden of proof. See Matter of 
Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. 
The other submitted letter is new to the record. is chair and co-founder of l 
a "charity initiative founded by alumni passionate about making a 
difference and enabling underprivileged people in our society. " Mr. stated: 
[The petitioner] worked with the team following the Balanced Scorecard approach to 
help us establish our mission, vision, values and basically our identity. With her help we 
were able to move on much faster, pinpoint the partnering entities, set up goals and 
leverage the talent in the team. 
I can see how her unique approach creatively combining the Balanced Scorecard and the 
principles for accelerating accountability within the teams can benefit many 
businesses on a large and smaller scale across [the] U. S. 
The petitioner claims on motion that she was the first to incorporate "the principles" into 
the Balanced Scorecard, but the record includes no evidence to show that she was in fact the first to do 
so, or to establish that this combination has had a significant impact on the field of business 
development management. The petitioner has identified one more project in which she has participated, 
but has not shown the significance of this project. Mr. new letter is consistent with other 
evidence in the record, indicating that the petitioner is chiefly known among alumni of the Program for 
Leadership Development at We previously found that the petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the national interest waiver. The petitioner, on motion, has not overcome this 
finding. We will, therefore, affirm that finding. 
The petitioner, on motion, does not address, rebut, or overcome our finding that she has not established 
eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification. Rather, in her statement on motion, she refers to 
herself "[a]s a holder of an advanced degree, and an alien of exceptional ability," without 
acknowledging our contrary finding which took up three pages of the appellate decision. Therefore, our 
prior finding stands undisturbed; we will not repeat the discussion of the issue here. 
We will affirm the dismissal of the appeal 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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that 
burden. 
ORDER: The AAO's decision of July 2, 2014 is affirmed. The petition remains denied.