dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civic Engagement

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.s. CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAo)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: DEC 2 1 2012 OFFICE:TEXASSERVICECENTER
IN RE: Petitionr
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degreeor anAlien of ExceptionalAbility PursuanttoSection203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase. All of thedocuments
relatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
any further inquiry that you might haveconcerningyour casemustbe madeto that office.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiledwithin
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
onRosen
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition.Thematteris nowbeforetheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) onappeal.TheAAO will
dismisstheappeal.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationundersection203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (the
Act), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),as a memberof the professionsholdingan advanceddegree.The
petitionerseeksemploymentastheTexasstateprogramdirectorfor Mi FamiliaVota(MFV), a non-
partisancommunityorganization.Thepetitionerassertsthatanexemptionfrom therequirementof a
job offer,andthusof a laborcertification,is in thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.Thedirector
foundthatthepetitionerqualifiesfor classificationasamemberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanced
degree,butthatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatanexemptionfromtherequirementof ajob offer
wouldbein thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.
Onappeal,thepetitionersubmitsabrieffromcounsel.
Section203(b)of theAct states,in pertinentpart:
(2) Aliens Who Are Membersof the ProfessionsHolding AdvancedDegreesor Aliens of
ExceptionalAbility.-
(A) In General.- Visasshallbe madeavailable. . . to qualifiedimmigrantswho are
membersof the professionsholding advanceddegreesor their equivalentor who
becauseof their exceptionalability in thesciences,arts,or business,will substantially
benefitprospectivelythenationaleconomy,culturalor educationalinterests,or welfare
of the UnitedStates,andwhoseservicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or business
aresoughtby anemployerin theUnitedStates.
(B) Waiverof JobOffer-
(i) . . . theAttorneyGeneralmay,whentheAttorneyGeneraldeemsit tobein
thenationalinterest,waivetherequirementsof subparagraph(A) thatanalien's
servicesin thesciences,arts,professions,or businessbesoughtbyanemployer
in theUnitedStates.
Thedirectorconcludedthatthepetitionerqualifiesasamemberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanced
degree.TheAAO will revisitthisfindingfurtherbelow. Thedirector'ssolestatedgroundfor denial
wasthatthepetitionerhadnot establishedthata waiverof thejob offer requirement,andthusa labor
certification,isin thenationalinterest.
Neitherthe statutenor the pertinentregulationsdefinethe term "nationalinterest." Additionally,
Congressdid notprovidea specificdefinitionof "in thenationalinterest."TheCommitteeon the
Judiciarymerelynotedin itsreporttotheSenatethatthecommitteehad"focusedonnationalinterestby
Page3
increasingthe numberandproportionof visasfor immigrantswho would benefitthe UnitedStates
economicallyandotherwise.. . ." S.Rep.No. 55,101stCong.,IstSess.,11(1989).
Supplementaryinformationto regulationsimplementingthe ImmigrationAct of 1990,publishedat
56Fed.Reg.60897,60900(November29,1991),states:
The Service[now U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices(USCIS)]believesit
appropriateto leavetheapplicationof thistestasflexibleaspossible,althoughclearly
an alien seekingto meet the [national interest] standardmust make a showing
significantlyabovethat necessaryto prove the "prospectivenationalbenefit"
[requiredof aliensseekingto qualifyas"exceptional."]Theburdenwill restwith the
alien to establishthat exemptionfrom, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the
nationalinterest.Eachcaseis to bejudgedon its ownmerits.
In re New YorkStateDept. of Transportation(NYSDOT),22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc.Comm'r
1998),hassetforthseveralfactorswhichmustbeconsideredwhenevaluatinga requestfor a national
interestwaiver. First,thepetitionermustshowthatthealienseeksemploymentin anareaof substantial
intrinsicmerit. Next, thepetitionermustshowthat the proposedbenefitwill be nationalin scope.
Finally,thepetitionerseekingthewaivermustestablishthatthealienwill servethenationalinteresttoa
substantiallygreaterdegreethanwould anavailableUnitedStatesworkerhavingthesameminimum
qualifications.
While thenationalinterestwaiverhingeson prospectivenationalbenefit,thepetitionermustestablish
thatthealien'spastrecordjustifiesprojectionsof futurebenefittothenationalinterest.Thepetitioner's
subjectiveassurancethat the alien will, in the future,servethe nationalinterestcannotsuffice to
establishprospectivenationalbenefit. Theintentionbehindtheterm"prospective"is to requirefuture
contributionsby the alien,ratherthanto facilitatethe entryof an alienwith no demonstrableprior
achievements,andwhosebenefittothenationalinterestwouldthusbeentirelyspeculative.
TheAAO alsonotesthattheUSCISregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(2)defines"exceptionalability"
as "a degreeof expertisesignificantlyabovethat ordinarilyencountered"in a given areaof
endeavor. By statute,aliensof exceptionalability are generallysubjectto thejob offer/labor
certification requirement;they are not exemptby virtue of their exceptionalability. Therefore,
whethera given alienseeksclassificationasan alienof exceptionalability, or asa memberof the
professionsholdinganadvanceddegree,thataliencannotqualify for awaiverjust by demonstrating
adegreeof expertisesignificantlyabovethatordinarilyencounteredin hisor herfield of expertise.
ThepetitionerfiledtheFormI-140petitiononDecember29,2011.Theinitialsubmissioncontained
no statementfrom thepetitionerto explainhis intendedactivitiesin theUnitedStates,howthose
activitieswill benefittheUnitedStates,or why it is in thenationalinterestfor him (ratherthana
qualifiedUnitedStatesworker)to performthem. Thepetitionerdid, however,submitfour witness
lettersfrom individualswhohaveworkedwith him in thepast.
Page4
BenMonterroso,executivedirectorof MFV, stated:
Mi Familia Vota (MFV) is the premiernationalnon-profitorganizationthat unites
I2tino immigrant and allied communitiesto promotesocial and economicjustice
throughincreasedcivic participation. Mi Familia Vota develops,coordinates,and
implementssophisticatednon-partisanfield programsand strategiestargetingthe
complexand diverseLatino electorate,including promotingcitizenship,increasing
voterregistration,andincreasingvoterparticipation.. . . Mi FamiliaVotais currently
buildingcivicallyengaged,activecommunitiesin Arizona,California,Texas,Florida,
Nevada,andis evaluatingthe possibilityof establishingoperationsin New Mexico
andNorthCarolina.
. . . I haveknown[thepetitioner]since2008asheservedasMi FamiliaVotaArizona
Interim StateDirector. Basedon my experiencewith him as my employee,his
academiccredentials,hisexpertknowledgeof thedifferentI2tino communitiesin the
countryandtheir peculiarpolitical cultures,his morethana decade[of] professional
experience,andhisleadershipstandingandrecognitionin thecommunity,I believeit
is in our nationalinterestto have[thepetitioner]work asa StateDirectorto promote
Latinoparticipationin theupcomingelections.
[Thepetitioner's]expertiseasa Masterin SocialPsychology,his PhDcandidacyin
culturalanthropologist[sic] andhis experienceasanorganizerwill help us develop
innovativeculturallyappropriatemodelsto engagethecommunitymoreeffectivelyto
increaseparticipationatsubstantiallyhigherlevelsthanourcurrentprogramsprovide.
Wewill beableto implementtheseinnovationsataminimumin thefive stateswhere
wehaveoperations.Theseareall keystatesthatwill haveasubstantialimpactonthe
2012elections.
noliticaldirectorof theServiceEmployeesInternationalUnion(SEIU)Arizona,
statedthatshehasworkedwith thepetitionerin thator anizationandin theValleyInterfaithProject
of theIndustrialAreasFoundation(IAF). offeredgeneralpraisefor thepetitioner
butsaidlittle abouthisspecificpastachievementsor intendedfutureefforts:
[The petitioner] was instrumentalin developing several dozen leaders within
churches, schools, labor unions, neighborhood associations,and particularly
immigrantrights organizations.I havealwaysbeenimpressedwith [the petitioner]
andhaveadmiredhow heis ableto translatevery complexsocialtheoryinto action.
Throughouthis career as an academic,professionalorganizer, and social
psychologist,hehasbeenableto applyhisdeepunderstandingof humannatureand
social processesto promoteand encouragecivic participationamongstthe most
diversepopulations.He is particularlyeffectiveorganizingtheLatinocommunities
in the UnitedStatesas he possessesa very sophisticatedunderstandingof their
cultureandpoliticalandfaithtraditions.Also,becauseof hissocialsciencetraining,
Page5
[the petitioner]is alwaysintentionalin developinglong-lastingsystemsandmodels
thatcanbetestedandreplicated.
I believethat our countrywill benefitgreatlyby having [the petitioner]work as a
StateDirectorwith Mi FamiliaVota;hewill applyhisknowledgeandexperiencein
promoting civic participation within the I2tino community and in developing
organizingmodelsthatwill helpbuildalastingpoliticalparticipationculture.
chairof EmergeArizona,stated:
I haveknown[thepetitioner]since2003whenhecoordinatedthePhoenixsegmentof
the ImmigrantWorker's FreedomRide in his capacityas Lead organizer/Cultural
researcherandtrainerwith theRoofersUnion.
. . . The Latino communityis especiallyafflicted by a lack of participationin the
political processandparticularlyin public service. It is in the bestinterestof our
nationto engagedisenfranchisedcommunitiesto fully participate.I stronglybelieve
that [the petitioner's]academicandresearchbackgroundaswell ashis professional
experiencein civic engagementwill havea tremendousprospectivebenefit to our
nation.
As a StateDirectorfor Mi Familia Vota,[thepetitioner]will be ableto engagea
stubbornlydifficult populationand encouragethem to participatein the upcoming
elections.At thesametime,hewill helpdevelopsystemsof Latinovoterengagement
thatwill serveasmodelsin otherareasof our nationwherethe I2tino communityis
growmg.
statedthat thepetitioner'seducationalbackgroundandpastexperiencegavehim "the
appropriateprofile to have a significant impact in educatingand promoting civic participation
amongsttheLatinocommunity."
aresearcherattheUniversidadAutónomadeBajaCalifornia,stated:
I have known [the petitioner] since 1996 as we both worked on our graduate
programsin SocialandCulturalAnthropologyatArizonaStateUniversity.. . .
In his article "Defining the US-MexicanBorder as Hyper-reality," [the petitioner]
advancedour understandingof borderprocessesthathelpsinterpretactionsof I2tino
immigrantsbeyondthe immediacyof the border line. I have followed [the
petitioner's]professionalcareerandhavewitnessedandmarveledathoweffectively
he hasappliedhis sophisticatedanthropologicalandpsycho-socialknowledgeof
Latinoculturalgroupsin theUnitedStatesto promoteactivecitizenshipamongthese
communities.. . .
Page6
Latinosaregrosslyunderrepresentedin publicoffices,havethehighesthighschool
dropoutrateof any ethnicgroup,are the mostadverselyaffectedby the current
economiccrisis, are amongstthe highestgroupssufferingincarceration,and have
higher than the national averagehealth problemswhich generatesa hugepublic
healthcost. Noneof thesecircumstanceswill changeuntil the 12tino developtheir
ownpoliticalvoiceandshowit atthepollingplace.Thecharacteristics- suchasthe
socioeconomicindicatorsof educationandincome,aswell asculturalidiosyncrasies,
apathyanda distrustof politics becauseof experiencesin their countryof origin -
unique to Latinos that affect voting participationare complex. [The petitioner's]
culturalknowledgeandprofessionalexperiencewill provean indispensableassetto
the United Statesas he helpsdevelopa model for voting projectstargetingethnic
minoritiesacrossthecountry.
The witnessesquotedaboveexpressedconfidencein the petitioner'sability to increasepolitical
engagementby theLatinocommunity,but theydid notsaywhatsuccess,if any,thepetitionerhas
alreadyhadin suchwork. Thepetitionerhasalreadyservedasa statedirectorfor MFV, but the
petitionerprovidedno documentaryevidence(suchas statisticalmaterials)to show that the
petitioner'swork hasincreasedvoterengagementby UnitedStatescitizensin theLatinocommunity.
Thepetitionersubmittedmaterialsabouthis earlierorganizingwork, which addressedsocialissues
otherthanvoterparticipation. Severalnewspaperarticles,for instance,discussedhis work with the
United Union of Roofers,WaterproofersandAllied Workers. The union activity appearsto have
beenlocalto theareaof Phoenix,Arizona. Hereceivedawardsfrom localorganizations,but thereis
no evidencethat his work attractedwider notice. More recently,the petitionerwas one of 24
membersof the Minority OutreachSubcommitteeof the 116-memberPhoenix 2010 Census
CompleteCountCommittee,formedtoencourageparticipationin the2010Census.
Othernewsarticlesreferto effortsto strengthenandsolidify a pro-DemocraticLatinovoting bloc.
While USCISwill considerthesematerialsinsofarastheyattestto low voterturnoutwithin the
Latinocommunity,theassertionthatI2tino voters,or anyothervotingbloc,canchangetheoutcome
of anelectionis beyondwhatUSCIScanconsiderasa nationalinterestissue.As aninstrumentof
the federalgovernment,USCIScannotconcludethat it is in the nationalinterestto ensurethat
candidatesfrom aparticularpartywin or loseagivenelection.
Overall, the petitioner's initial submissionconveysthe generalidea that Latino voter turnout is
unacceptablylow, andthatthepetitioner,asanexperiencedcommunityorganizer,intendsto address
thatproblem.Theinitial evidence,however,doesnotshowthatthepetitionerhashadsignificant
previoussuccessin that area. Therefore,it is not evidentthatprojectionsof future impactreston
morethanconfidentspeculationby witnesseswhohaveworkedwith thepetitionerin thepast.
On April 3, 2012, the directorissueda requestfor evidence(RFE), instructingthe petitionerto
submit further documentationto meet the guidelines set forth in NYSDOT. The director
Page7
acknowledgedtheevidencethataccompaniedthepetition,butcalledfor evidenceto showthewider
influenceof thepetitioner'spastwork.
The petitioner'sresponseto the notice (mailedMay 4, 2012and receivedon May 7) includeda
coverletterin whichcounselstated:
Pleaseacceptthissubmissionasapartialresponseto theRFEyouissuedonApril 3,
2012.Regulationsallowfor partialresponsesto RFEs.8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(11).
[The petitioner] will be submittingseveralmore lettersof supportfrom political
representatives,evidencinghis influenceon the field of advocacyandorganization.
Thoseletterswill besubmittedwithin oneweek.
Counsel,in the passagequotedabove,reliedon an incompleteandself-servingreadingof the
regulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(11).Thecompleteregulationreads:
In responseto a requestfor evidenceor a noticeof intent to deny,andwithin the
periodaffordedfor a response,the applicantor petitionermay: submit a complete
responsecontainingall requestedinformationat anytimewithin theperiodafforded;
submita partialresponseandaskfor a decisionbasedon therecord;or withdrawthe
benefitrequest.All requestedmaterialsmustbesubmittedtogetheratonetime,along
with theoriginalUSCISrequestfor evidenceor noticeof intentto deny. Submission
of onlysomeof therequestedevidencewill beconsidereda requestfor adecisionon
therecord.
The completeregulationclearlyandunambiguouslycontradictscounsel'sclaim thatthe regulation
permitsthepetitionerto submitastaggeredresponseto anRFE. Theregulationdoesindeedpermit
a "partial response,"but it doesnot permit the submissionof a later supplementto completethat
response.Furthermore,the USCISregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8)(iv)states:"Additional time
to respondto a requestfor evidenceor noticeof intentto denymaynot begranted." Here,counsel
haseffectivelysoughtanimpermissibleextension,throughtheuntenableclaimthatthepetitioner
couldsubmita"partialresponse"duringthetimepermittedwithasupplementto followlater.
TheAAO notesthatthepetitionerdid not submitthe supplement"within oneweek"of the "partial
submission." Instead,the petitionermailedthe supplementon June28, 2012,nearlyeight weeks
afterthe initial RFEresponse.Counsel'scoverlettermadeno referenceto this significantdelay,let
aloneofferedanyexplanationfor it.
A practitionerengagesin frivolousbehaviorwhenhe or sheknowsor reasonablyshouldhave
knownthat his or her actionslack an arguablebasisin law or in fact,or aretakenfor an improper
purpose,suchastoharassorto causeunnecessarydelay.8 C.F.R.§ 1003.102(j)(1).
Page8
Thepetitioner'stimely responseto theRFEincludeda brief in which counseldiscussedtheoverall
importanceof voting,andthegrowingimportanceof Latinovoters. Counselstated:
Thelaborcertificationprocess. . . is clearlyinappropriatehere.Thenationalinterest
demandsthat an organizerandadvocateof [the petitioner's]statureandabilitiesbe
allowedto remainin the country.. . . Civil rights activistsandadvocates,like [the
petitioner],do not hold genericpublic policy positions. Rather,they hold one-of-a-
kind jobs where they are required to have extensiveknowledge and intimate
familiarity with the Latino community's ever-changingsocial and political
sensitivities.Theeffectivecandidatefor anycivil rightsadvocacyleadershipposition
requires an analyst who, at a minimum, is able to identify and scrutinize the
unmeasuredpoliticalattitudes,culturalnormsof Latinosrelatingto politics,andother
backgroundethnicdifferencesthatexplainthegapsin theelectorate.. . .
[L]abor certification requirementsthat contemplate "on-the-job training" or
"minimum qualifications" have no place in this arena. . . . [The petitioner's]
culturally-specificresponsibilitiessimply do not fit within the labor certification
process.
Counsel,in effect, arguedthat it is impossibleto specify "minimum qualifications" for the
petitioner'sintendedposition,andthatthereforelaborcertificationdoesnot andcannotapplyto that
position. Counselcited no evidenceto supportthis position;counselsimply declaredthat the
petitionermustreceivethewaiverbecausehispositionlies outsidetheboundariesof jobs for which
laborcertificationis possible.Theunsupportedassertionsof counseldo notconstituteevidence.See
MatterofObaigbena,19I&N Dec.533,534n.2(BIA 1988);MatterofLaureano,19I&N Dec.1,3n.2
(BIA 1983);Matterof Ramirez-Sanchez,17 I&N Dec.503,506 (BIA 1980). Congress,through
legislation,decideswhichclassificationsof aliensaresubjecttothelaborcertificationrequirement.The
petitionercannotsimply declarehimselfexemptfrom thatrequirement,or claim thatsomejobs are
inherentlytooimportanttobeleft tothelaborcertificationprocess.
Withrespecttothepetitioner'squalifications,counselstated:
[Thepetitioner's]modelfor civic engagementwill be crucialto Latinoselectingthe
next president.. . . [Thepetitioner's]approachto boostthepolitical incorporationof
Latinosis uniquebecauseit actuallyseeksto weave12tinosinto the overall civic
political life in the United States,andnot merely to increasetheir numbersin the
voterregistrationrolls. His approach. . . succeedswherethestandardvoterinitiative
modelfails becauseit promotestheintegrationof Latinoresidentsin thepolitical life
of their communitiesthrough the creation of organizingcommitteeswithin
intermediateinstitutions.. . . Thisapproachis vastlydifferentthantheonetypically
appliedbyvoteradvocacyorganizationsto thegeneralpopulation- initiativeswhose
main purpose is to increaseawarenessof the importanceof voting, and not
necessarilytheactualincorporationof constituentsintothepoliticalstatusquo.. . .
Page9
The services[the petitioner] will be renderingmay be local, but becausehis
directorshipwill serveas the modelfor other Mi FamiliaVota locationsin the
Southwest,theirimpactwill benationalin scope.
Counseldiscussedthe petitioner'swork with variousorganizations. With respectspecificallyto
voterparticipation,counselnotedthatthepetitioner"was theMi FamiliaVota Interim Directorfor
Arizona" "[d]uring the 2008 electoralseason." Counselstatedthat the petitioner "directed a
statewideget-out-the-votecampaignthattargetedmorethan88,000low-propensity12tinovoters
acrossthestate"and"wasinstrumentalin defeatingProp200,"aproposedconstitutionalamendment
that would havepermittedcertainpredatorylending practices. Counselconcededthat, without
polling data, "it is impossibleto measurethe specificeffect" of the petitioner'swork, but
neverthelesscounselcontendedthat the petitioner'smethodswere"instrumentalin defeating"the
ballot initiative.
Counselprovidedno figuresto showhow many of the "more than 88,000low-propensityI2tino
voters" actuallyvoted,or that their voteschangedthe outcomeof the vote on Proposition200)
Most important,counselprovidedno figuresto showthat thepetitionerhas,in thepast,beenmore
successfulthan other organizersat registeringand mobilizing voters. This unsupportedand
anecdotalexampledoesnot showthatthepetitionerhashadanespeciallysignificantimpacton the
problemof lowparticipationby I2tino voters.
Thelackof supportingevidenceis significantwhenconsideringcounsel'sclaimthatthepetitioner's
methodswill serveasa "model"to beemulatedelsewhere.Thepetitionerhasalreadyserved(albeit
on an interim basis)as a statedirector for MFV, and there is no evidencethat his work has
establishedanationalmodel. Furthermore,thereareotherstatedirectorsfor MFV. Counselhasnot
explainedwhy it is the petitioner,ratherthan the other directors,whosework will establisha
nationwidemodel.
Thepetitionersubmitteda photocopiedletterfrom U.S.RepresentativeEd Pastor,who deemedthe
petition"deservingof thoroughconsideration"andpraisedthepetitioner'sefforts"encouragingthe
inclusionof traditionallydisenfranchisedminoritypopulations."
Thepetitionersubmitteda secondcopyof "Defining the U.S.-MexicoBorderasHyperreality,"an
academicjournal article submittedpreviouslywith the initial filing of the petition. This article,
which datesfrom 2001, discussesvarious sociological conceptionsof the border but has no
demonstratedbearingon thepetitioner'sintendedwork asa statedirectorfor MFV. Thepetitioner
alsosubmittedfurtherevidencethatValledelSol,a Phoenix-basedhumanitarianorganization,had
previously honoredthe petitioner as a "Latino Advocacy Champion." The petitioner did not
establishthatthisrecognitionrelatedtovoterparticipationactivities.
1Accordingto unofficial resultspostedon the web siteof theArizonaSecretaryof State,Proposition200 received
1,271,717"No" votesto 860,607"Yes" votes,an almost60-40loss with a differenceof 411,110votes. Source:
http://www.azsos.gov/results/2008/general/BM200.htm(printoutaddedto recordDecember12,2012)
Page10
Thepetitionersubmittedbackgroundinformationrelatingto controversialMaricopaCountySheriff
andallegationsof civil rightsviolationsby his department.Counselcontendedthatthe
petitioner'seffortsledto actionon theseallegations,but the submittedevidenceonthe subjectdoes
notmentionthepetitioneratall, let aloneestablishhisrolein thecontroversy.
The directordeniedthe petition on August28, 2012. The directoracknowledgedthe petitioner's
first, timely responseto theRFE,but foundthatthepetitionerfailedto distinguishhimselffrom
otheradvocatesby, for example,showingthat his work hasinfluencedothersin his field. The
directorstated:"The recordcontainsno evidenceto showthatotheradvocatesareimplementingthe
petitioner'sproposalsor strategies."
On appeal,counselstates:"Neither the regulationsor existing case law require that an NIW
applicantestablishthathisworkhasinfluencedothersin hisfield. Regulationsandcaselawrequire
only thatanNIW applicantprovethathehasmadea substantialcontributionto his field." Counsel
doesnot citeanyspecific"regulations[or] caselaw" in supportof thisposition.
The USCISregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F)refersto "Evidenceof recognitionfor
achievementsandsignificantcontributionsto theindustryor field by peers,governmentalentities,or
professionalor businessorganizations."Suchevidence,however,doesnot establisheligibility for
thenationalinterestwaiver.Rather,thesixsubclausesof theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)
relateto exceptionalability in the sciences,the artsor business.Thepetitionermustmeetat least
threeof thesix specifiedstandardsin orderto establishexceptionalability. Eventhen,exceptional
ability is not, on its face, groundsfor approvingthe national interestwaiver. Under the plain
wordingof section203(b)(2)(A)of theAct,aliensof exceptionalabilityare,generally,subjecttothe
job offer requirement(which includeslaborcertification). Counseloffersno supportfor theclaim
that "[r]egulations and caselaw require only that an NIW applicantprove that he has madea
substantialcontributionto his field."
With respectto counsel'scontentionthat"[n]either theregulationsor existingcaselaw requirethat
anNIW applicantestablishthathis workhasinfluencedothersin his field," NYSDOTrequires"a
pasthistoryof demonstrableachievementwith somedegreeof influenceon thefield asa whole."
Id. at 219 n.6. Furthermore,counselpreviously stated:"The services[the petitioner) will be
renderingmay be local, but becausehis directorshipwill serveasthe modelfor otherMi Familia
Vota locations in the Southwest,their impact will be national in scope." Thus, the waiver
applicationrestson the claim that the petitioner's work will "serveas [a] model" for othersto
follow. Thepetitionerhasalreadyhelda statedirectorshipat MFV, andthushasalreadyhadthe
opportunityto establisha modelprogramfor othersto implement. Thereis no evidencethat the
petitioner,havingdonemoreor lessexactlythe typeof work he seeksto do in the future,has
influencedothersthroughtheestablishmentof modelprograms.Therefore,thereis little basisto
concludethatsuchinfluencewill appearin thefuture.
Page11
Counselcontendsthat the petitionercannotobtaina labor certificationbecausehis skills "relate[]
specificallyto thefield of Latino voterandcivic engagement"(counsel'semphasis).Counseldoes
notciteanystatute,regulationor caselaw to supportor explainthisassertion.
In asupplementalbrief, counselstates:
The Director's conclusionis predicatedon the myopicassumptionthat an alien can
showa substantialinfluencein his field only by establishingwidespreadcitationof
his work or methodologyby his peers. The Directorignoresthat an alien can
establishhestandsout substantiallyfrom his peersin otherpracticalwaysthatare
moreapplicabletohisfieldof endeavor.
Thedirector,in thedenialnotice,nevermentioned"widespreadcitation"atall. Counselasserts:
While analien'sinfluenceon hispeersis onewayto gaugehis influencein thefield,
it is nottheonlyway,noris it necessarilythebestwayto distinguishhisinfluenceas
awhole.. . .
The petitioner's specialtyis an appliedscienceratherthan a theoreticalone, and
therefore,it is appropriateto judgehis influencein thefield to the extentthathis
advocacywork has measurablyaffected the political landscapeand the Latino
community.
As evidenceof the petitioner'sinfluenceon "the political landscapeandthe Latino community,"
counselcitesvariousexhibitsthatpredatethe petitioner'swork with voterparticipationgroupsand
lettersfromRep.Pastorandindividualswhohaveworkedwith thepetitioner.TheAAO discussed
thesematerialspreviously.
Counselalso quotedfrom lettersand exhibitssubmittedwith the June28, 2012 attemptto
supplementtheRFE. Counselstates:"TheDirector'sdecisioninexplicablyfailedto acknowledge,
letalonemention,thesecrucialpiecesof evidencein hisdecision."Theomissionof thesecondRFE
responseis notinexplicableascounselclaims.As explainedpreviously,theregulationsat8 C.F.R.
§§ 103.2(b)(8)(iv)and(11) do not permit the petitionerto supplementa prior RFE responseor to
submitmaterialsafter the specifiedresponseperiodhaselapsed.The director'sevidentrefusalto
consideranuntimelyandunacceptablesubmissiondoesnot constituteadjudicativeerror. Because
the aboveregulationssupportthe exclusionof the late submissionfrom consideration,the director
properlydid not discussthisuntimelyandimpermissiblesubmissionin thedenialnotice.
Counselconcludesby stating:
The evidenceon the recordclearlydemonstratesthat the petitionerhasnot only
playeda critical role in a field of nationalimportance,andthat he hasindeedmade
substantialcontributionsusingskills notnormallyencounteredin hisprofession,but
Page12
theevidencealsoclearlyestablishesthatthe petitioner'scontributionsgo beyondthe
substantialprospectivenationalbenefitrequiredof all aliensseekingclassificationas
"exceptional."
Thepetitioner'spastrecordincludeswork with a variety of organizations,including laborunions
and community projects. The offered justification for the national interestwaiver, however,
specificallyconcernsvoterparticipationwork. Within thatspecializedarea,theproperlysubmitted
evidencethat the regulationspermittedthe director to acceptcontainedlittle to distinguishthe
petitionerfrom hispeers.
Therecordestablishesthatthepetitioneris a dedicatedorganizerwhohasearnedtherespectof co-
workersand employers. It doesnot show,however,that the petitioner'spast work with MFV
justifies projectionsof future benefit that would warrantapprovalof the nationalinterestwaiver.
TheAAO will, therefore,affirm thedirector'sdecisionanddismisstheappeal.
Reviewof the recordrevealsa furtherdeficiencythat,by itself, is anothergroundfor denialof the
petition. The AAO may identify additionalgroundsfor denial beyondwhat the ServiceCenter
identified in the initial decision. SeeSpencerEnterprises,Inc. v. UnitedStates,229 F. Supp.2d
1025,1043(E.D.Cal.2001),aff'd, 345F.3d683(9'' Cir. 2003);seealsoSoltanev.DOJ,381F.3d
143,145(3dCir.2004)(notingthattheAAO conductsappellatereviewonadenovobasis).
Thepetitionerhasclaimedeligibility asa memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree.
Therecordshowsthat heholdsa B.A. in Philosophyandan M.A. in SocialandOrganizational
Psychology,bothfromtheUniversityof Chihuahua,Mexico. A credentialevaluationindicatesthat
thesedegreesareequivalentto theirUnitedStatescounterparts.Thepetitionerthereforeholdsan
advanceddegree.(TherecordrepeatedlyidentifiesthepetitionerasadoctoralcandidateatArizona
StateUniversity,butthereis noevidencethatheactuallyreceivedadoctorate.)
Simplyholdinganadvanceddegreedoesnot qualifythepetitionerasa memberof theprofessions
holdinganadvanceddegree.TheUSCISregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(k)(2)definesaprofessionas
oneof theoccupationslistedin section101(a)(32)of theAct, aswell asanyoccupationfor whicha
UnitedStatesbaccalaureatedegreeor its foreign equivalentis the minimumrequirementfor entry
into theoccupation.Thepetitioner'sintendedoccupationis not listedin section101(a)(32)of the
Act, and thereforeit only qualifies as a professionif entry into the occupationrequires,at a
minimum,abachelor'sdegree.
The petitioner,on the Form I-140 petition, statedthat his intendedoccupationhas a Standard
OccupationalClassification(SOC)Codeof 11-9151. Accordingto O*NET Online,a web site
operatedonbehalfof theU.S.Departmentof Labor,theSOCCode11-9151correspondsto "Social
andCommunityServiceManagers."A surveyof employersindicatedthat 18%of suchpositions
requirea master'sdegree;51% of positionsrequirea bachelor'sdegree;and 10%requirea high
Page13
schooldiplomaor its equivalent.2Clearly,occupationsclassifiedas"SocialandCommunityService
Managers"often,butnot always,requireabaccalaureatedegree.
It may well be that the petitioner'sintendedposition requiresa bachelor'sdegree,but the record
doesnot containsufficient evidenceto supportsucha finding. Therefore,the petitionerhasnot
establishedthathis occupationqualifiesasa profession.This omissionis, by itself,sufficientto
preventapprovalof thepetition,andthereforeit presentsanadditionalgroundfor denial.
The AAO will dismissthe appealfor the abovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredas an
independentandalternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof proving
eligibility for the benefit soughtremainsentirely with the petitioner. Section291 of the Act,
8U.S.C.§ 1361.Thepetitionerhasnotmetthatburden.
ORDER: Theappealisdismissed.
2Source:http://www.onetonline.ore/link/summarv/11-9151.00(excerptsaddedtorecordDecember12,2012).