dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Securit y 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Admini strati ve Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: JAN 1 0 2014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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://www.usci s.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO . 
Thank you, 
iJO£JJJn~ 
G Ron Rosenberg 
~ Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. 1 The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
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 an advanced degree.2 According to 
Part 6 of the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, the petitioner seeks employment as an 
elementary school teacher. The petitioner has taught for 
since 2006. At the time of filing, the petitioner was working for 
Maryland. 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 
holding 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. 
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 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 ofJob 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 record reflects that the petitioner received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from 
in 1987 and that she has more than five years of progressive post-
1 The petitioner simultaneously filed two Forms I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, on June 3, 2013 
and In Part 2 of both forms, the petitioner checked box B, indicating that she was "filing an appeal." 
This decision addresses A separate decision has been issued on 
2 The petitioner was initially represented by attorney In this decision, the term "previous counsel" 
shall refer to Mr 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
baccalaureate experience as a teacher. Accordingly, the record reflects that the petitioner qualifies as 
a member of the professions with progressive post-baccalaureate experience equivalent to an 
advanced degree under the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) regulation at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that 
a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
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." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in 
its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, 10lst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, P.L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990) (IMMACT90), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 
29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this test as flexible as 
possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must 
make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national 
benefit" [required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest 
with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
In reNew York State Dept 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 she 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 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. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
her past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. 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. 
The petitioner has established that her work as an elementary school teacher is in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. It remains, then, to determine whether the proposed benefits of the 
petitioner's work will be national in scope and whether she will benefit the national interest to a 
greater extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. 
(b)(6)
---- - -- - - ---·· -----
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
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. Moreover, it cannot 
suffice to state that the petitioner possesses useful skills, or a "unique background." 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 United States is an issue under the jurisdiction 
of the Department of Labor. !d. at 221. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140 petition on June 28, 2012. In Part 4 of the Form I-140, the 
petitioner answered "no" to whether any immigrant visa petitions had previously been filed on her 
behalf. The record, however, reflects 
that filed a Form I-140 petition, with an approved 
labor certification, on her behalf on April 8, 2011, to classify her as a professional under section 
203(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. The Texas Service Center approved the petition on February 1, 2012, 
with a priority date of April22, 2010. 
In a June 28, 2012 letter accompanying the petition, previous counsel stated that the petitioner's 
national interest waiver is "based on her Equivalent advanced degree" and "almost 25 years of post­
baccalaureate progressive work experience as an educator both in the Philippines and in the United 
States of America ." Academic degrees and occupational experience are elements that can contribute 
toward a finding of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), respectively. 
Exceptional ability, in tum, is not self-evident grounds for the waiver. See section 203(b)(2)(A) of 
the Act. The USCIS 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, 
aliens 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 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. 
In his letter accompanying the petition, previous counsel did not mention the NYSDOT guidelines or 
explain how the petitioner meets them. The record does not show how the petitioner's work will 
impact the field beyond With regard to the petitioner's teaching duties, there is no evidence 
establishing that the benefits of her work would extend beyond her elementary school students such 
that they will have a national impact. NYSDOT provides examples of employment where the 
benefits would not be national in scope: 
For instance, pro bono legal services as a whole serve the national interest, but the impact of 
an individual attorney working pro bono would be so attenuated at the national level as to be 
negligible. Similarly, while education is in the national interest, the impact of a single 
schoolteacher in one elementary school would not be in the national interest for purposes of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
waiving the job offer requirement of section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act. As another example, 
while nutrition has obvious intrinsic value, the work of one cook in one restaurant could not 
be considered sufficiently in the national interest for purposes of this provision of the Act. 
NYSDOT at 217, n.3. In the present matter, the petitioner has not shown the benefits of her impact as 
a special education teacher beyond the students at her school and, therefore, that her proposed 
benefits are national in scope. In addition, the record lacks specific examples of how the petitioner's 
work as a special educator has influenced the field on a national level. 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 classification 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. 
The petitioner submitted various letters of recommendation from administrators and teachers 
discussing her work as an educator. As some of the letters contain similar claims addressed in other 
letters, not every letter will be quoted. Instead, only selected examples will be discussed to illustrate 
the nature of the references' claims. 
stated: Principal, 
~-------' 
[The petitioner] is currently a kindergarten teacher at She has 
taught pre-kindergarten students and has completed her second year as a teacher in this 
school. [The petitioner] has taught in the system for 
six years. 
[The petitioner] currently teaches English Speakers of Other Languages students. More than 
90% of her class consists of ESOL kindergarteners. She has provided satisfactory service to 
the students and parents of She has met the instructional needs of students by 
planning and preparing lessons, administering assessments to determine instructional 
strengths and weaknesses and nurtured her students to success. 
[The petitioner] is cooperative, nurturing, and soft spoken. She participated in the MSDE 
[Maryland State Department of Education] Validation effort to make the early childhood 
program at a superb one. 
Ms. comments on the petitioner's duties and responsibilities at 
and describes the petitioner's personal qualities, but does not indicate how the petitioner's 
impact or influence as a teacher is national in scope. In addition, Ms. fails to provide 
specific examples of how the petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole. 
Kindergarten Team Leader, stated: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
I have known [the petitioner] for 3 years, and since August 2011, I have had the pleasure of 
working closely with her as a member of our Kindergarten team. In August 2011, she moved 
from the Prekindergarten team to the Kindergarten team at 
[The petitioner] is a valuable member of our Kindergarten team. 
services students in an urban area. We are a Title 1 school and 90% of our students come 
from homes that speak a language other than English. [The petitioner] meets the needs of 
these students in a calm and nurturing way. Her instruction of students who are English 
Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) has assisted them in acquiring both academic and 
English language skills. Based on end of the year assessments, her students made significant 
progress in all academic areas. 
[The petitioner] was punctual, reliable, and completed all tasks required of her during the 
2011-2012 school year. In the upcoming school year, we will be preparing for state 
validation of our Kindergarten program through the Maryland State Department of 
Education. [The petitioner] has experience with this process and I have no doubt that her 
expertise in this area will assist us in receiving state validation for our Kindergarten program. 
Mr. comments on the petitioner's activities and effectiveness as a member of the 
Kindergarten team at _ but does not indicate that the petitioner's 
work has had, or will continue to have, an impact beyond her students and 
Principal, , stated: 
I supervised [the petitioner] for approximately three years at where I 
was the assistant principal. I have found her to be a highly effective teacher. She has 
demonstrated the ability to plan and prepare coherent lessons that are suitable for diverse 
learners. She engages students in the learning process by using appropriate activities, 
assignments, questioning and discussion techniques. She has availed herself of many 
professional learning opportunities in the form of peer coaching, workshops, and 
collaborative planning. [The petitioner] is open to suggestions and reflects on her teaching. 
She is punctual, dependable and hard working. She maintains accurate records, works 
cooperatively with her team members, and follows policies and procedures . 
Ms. asserts that the petitioner is a "highly effective teacher" and points to the petitioner's 
suitable lesson plans, techniques for engaging students, professional development, openness to 
suggestions, punctuality, dependability, work ethic, accuracy m maintammg records, 
cooperativeness, and compliance with policies and procedures, but Ms. observations fail to 
demonstrate that the petitioner 's work has influenced the field as whole, or that the petitioner has or 
will benefit the United States to a greater extent than other similarly qualified elementary school 
teachers. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
The petitioner's references praise her abilities as a teacher and personal qualities, but they do not 
demonstrate that the petitioner's work has had an impact or influence outside of the schools where 
she has taught. They also do not address the NYSDOT guidelines which, as published precedent, are 
binding on all USCIS employees. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
cases). The BIA also held, however: "We not only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." !d. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter of Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered above. 
users may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert testimony. 
See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, USCIS is 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; see also Matter 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"). 
In addition to the reference letters, the petitioner submitted the following: 
1. A certificate from the Maryland State Department of Education "for completing the 
Validation Process of the . . . Standards for Implementing Quality Early Childhood 
Programs and to recognize ... dedication to maintaining educational excellence in the 
early learning years" (June 30, 2011); 
2. A Certificate of Appreciation from the administration of 
"for commitment, dedication, and outstanding contributions to the students and 
families of '(June 18, 2010); 
3. A Certificate of Appreciation from the principal of "for 
dedication and service" to the school (June 19, 2009); 
4. A Certificate of Achievement (2006) from the County Executive of 
during American Education Week in honor of the petitioner's "service as an 
educator" in the system; 
5. A Certificate of Recognition from the Board of Education 
wishing the petitioner "a successful and productive educational experience in the 
_ . '(September 27, 2006); 
6. A Certificate of Appreciation from the administration of (the 
petitioner's employer from June 1995 - March 2006) "for invaluable services and 
cooperation as Critic Teacher during the On-Campus Training of the 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
at the mainstream - Pre- and Elementary Department, 
(October 10, 2005); 
7. A Certificate of Appreciation from the administration of "for 
invaluable services and cooperation as Cooperating- Teacher during the On-Campus 
Training of the College of Education Student-Teacher, a 
Department" (October 13, 2004); 
8. A Certificate of Appreciation from the administration of for 
"invaluable services and cooperation as Cooperating Teacher during the On-Campus 
Training of the College of Education Student-Teacher, at Elementary Department of 
(October 14, 2003); 
9. A Certificate of Appreciation from the administration of for 
"invaluable services and cooperation as Cooperating Teacher during the On-Campus 
Training of the College of Education Student-Teacher, at Elementary Department of 
(October 9, 2002); 
10. A Certificate of Appreciation from the administration of . for 
"invaluable services and cooperation as Cooperating Teacher during the On-Campus 
Training of the Student Teachers" (October 15, 1998); 
11. A Certificate of Appreciation from the administration of for 
"invaluable services and cooperation as Cooperating Teacher during the On-Campus 
Training of the Student Teachers" (March 13, 1998); 
12. A Certificate of Appreciation from the administration of for "invaluable 
services and cooperation as Cooperating Teacher during the ... On-Campus Teaching of 
the ... College of Education" (October 17, 1997); 
13. A Certificate of Appreciation from the administration of for "her 
invaluable services and cooperation as Cooperating Teacher during the On-Campus 
Training of the ... Student Teacher" (October 4, 1996); 
14. A Certificate of Appreciation from the administration of for "her 
invaluable services and cooperation as Cooperating Teacher during the On-Campus 
Training of the On-Campus Students" (September 30, 1993); 
15. A Certificate of Appreciation from the Colleges and 
Universities Accrediting Agency, Inc. for "efforts and dedication in serving the Agency 
as an Accreditor and partner in promoting quality Christian Education through Voluntary 
Accreditation" (May 26, 2005); 
16. A Certificate of Appreciation from the 
for her "efforts and dedication in serving the 
Agency as an Accreditor and partner in promoting quality Christian Education through 
Voluntary Accreditation" (May 9, 2002); 
17. Employment verifications; 
18. Earnings statements; 
19. Academic records and transcripts; and 
20. Two Maryland Educator Certificates with validity periods of "7 /112006 - 6/30/2011" and 
"7/1/2011- 6/30/2016." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
Again, academic records, occupational experience, professional certifications, salary information, 
and recognition for achievements are all elements that relate to a finding of exceptional ability, but 
exceptional ability is not sufficient to establish eligibility for the national interest waiver. The plain 
language of section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act indicates that aliens of exceptional ability are subject to 
the job offer requirement (including alien employment certification). Particularly significant awards 
may serve as evidence of the petitioner's impact and influence on her field, but the petitioner has 
failed to demonstrate that the awards she received (items 1 - 16) have more than local, regional, or 
institutional significance. There is no documentary evidence showing that items 1 through 20 are 
indicative of the petitioner's influence on the field of education at the national level. 
The petitioner also submitted numerous certificates of participation, completion, and attendance for 
training courses and seminars relating to her professional development. While taking courses aqd 
attending seminars are ways to increase one's professional knowledge and to improve as a teacher, 
there is nothing inherent in these activities to establish eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted copies of her "satisfactory" teacher evaluations from 
-r---- 0 - - - • The petitioner, however, failed to 
demonstrate how the evaluations reflect that she has impacted the field to a substantially greater 
degree than other similary qualified educators and how her specific work has had significant impact 
outside of the schools where she has taught. 
The director issued a request for evidence on January 7, 2013, instructing the petitioner to submit 
evidence demonstrating that the benefits of her proposed employment would be national in scope 
and that she "has a past record of specific prior achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole." 
In res onse, the petitioner submitted a February 28, 2013 letter from Vice-Principal, 
~ _ asserting that the petitioner is a "highly qualified" member 
of the school's kindergarten team and that "her students made [] significant progress in all academic 
areas." Mr. observations, however, fail to explain how the petitioner's impact or influence 
as a kindergarten teacher is national in scope. 
The petitioner also submitted a February 25, 2013 letter from Assistant Principal, 
commenting on the petitioner's effectiveness as a kindergarten 
teacher, ability to provide appropriate instruction according to students' developmental needs, 
improvement of her students' reading proficiency, and value to the school. However, Ms. 
fails to provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has influenced the field of early 
childhood education as a whole. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted student performance assessment data for her kindergarteners at 
a March 2011 press release and data summary from )Ointing to the 
county's improved Maryland Model for School Readiness assessment results, and additional 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
"satisfactory" teacher evaluations, but the petitioner does not explain how the submitted 
documentation demonstrates her influence on the field as a whole. 
The petitioner also submitted a March 24, 2003 letter from U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige 
providing information about "how school districts may continue to hire and employ visiting teachers 
from other countries while being consistent with the statutory requirements that define a highly 
qualified teacher"; President George H.W. Bush's "Remarks on Signing the Immigration Act of 
1990"; a copy of Section 1119 of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA); a statement by U.S. 
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan on the National Assessment of Educational Progress Reading 
and Math 2011 Results; an article entitled "Supporting Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
Mathematics Education - Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act"; "Barack 
Obama on Education" questions and answers posted at www.ontheissues.org; an article in the Wall 
Street Journal entitled "The Importance of Math & Science in Education"; an article in Computer 
Science Technology entitled "Importance of Science and Math Education"; and the written testimony 
of Microsoft's Bill Gates before the Committee on Science and Technology of the United States 
House of Representatives (March 12, 2008). As previously discussed, general arguments or 
information regarding the importance of a given field of endeavor, or the urgency of an issue facing 
the United States, cannot by themselves establish that an individual benefits the national interest by 
virtue of engaging in the field. NYSDOT at 217. Such assertions and information address only the 
"substantial intrinsic merit" prong of NYSDOTs national interest test. None of the preceding 
documents demonstrate that the petitioner's specific work as an elementary school teacher has 
influenced the field as a whole. 
The director denied the petition on April 30, 2013. The director indicated that the petitioner had not 
shown that the proposed benefits of her work as a school teacher will be national in scope. The director 
also determined that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate she "would specifically benefit the national 
interest of the United States to a substantially greater degree than a similarly qualified U.S. worker." 
The director noted that the recommendation letters submitted by the petitioner failed to provide specific 
examples of how her teaching contributions have influenced the field. The director therefore concluded 
that the petitioner failed to establish that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in 
the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that her "proposed employment as an early childhood educator will 
be national in scope." The petitioner states: 
Although [the petitioner's] continued employment is restricted within one locality, which is 
the number of young children she has taught and will continue to 
teach cannot be overlooked. In her six years of teaching, approximately 210 children have 
been trained and provided with the basic skills of reading and writing. 
As previously discussed, NYSDOT cited school teachers as an example of a profession in a field with 
overall national importance (education), but in which individual workers generally do not produce 
benefits that are national in scope. NYSDOT at 217, n.3. The record contains no evidence 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
differentiating the petitioner's work from that of other competent early childhood educators or 
showing that the petitioner's efforts have national impact such as significantly effecting national 
literacy rates. 
The petitioner expresses her disagreement with NYSDOT stating: "One cannot simply undermine 
the impact a school teacher has. The results of the work of a teacher does [sic] not remain in the 
classroom, the same way students do not remain in one grade level or school for their entire life." 
With regard to following the guidelines set forth in NYSDOT, by law, the US CIS does not have the 
discretion to ignore binding precedent. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). The petitioner does not point to any 
evidence in the record showing that her specific work has produced substantial national benefits in 
the field of education. The national importance of "education" as a concept, or "early childhood 
educators" as a class, does not establish that the work of one teacher produces benefits that are 
national in scope. NYSDOT at 217, n.3. A local-scale contribution to an overall national effort to 
improve student literacy does not meet the NYSDOT threshold. There are no blanket waivers for 
experienced foreign school teachers. USCIS grants national interest waivers on a case-by-case basis, 
rather than establishing blanket waivers for entire 
fields of specialization. !d. at 217. 
The petitioner asserts that her proposed employment would benefit the national interest of the United 
States at a level above that of similarly qualified U.S. worker. The petitioner first points out that 
"has expressed the need for her teaching services," but due to an "unfortunate predicament" 
is "prohibited to file a petition on her behalf." The petitioner refers to the debarment provisions of 
section 212(n)(2)(C)(i) of the Act invoked by the U.S. Department of Labor against owing 
to certain immigration violations by that employer. As a result, between March 16, 2012 and March 
15, 2014, USCIS cannot approve any employment-based immigrant or nonimmigrant petitions filed 
by 3 This debarment means that is, temporarily, unable to file its own petition on 
the petitioner's behalf for a classification other than the one for which he was already approved, and 
thus explains why labor certification is not an option in the short term. The inapplicability or 
unavailability of a labor certification cannot be viewed as sufficient cause for a national interest 
waiver; the petitioner still must demonstrate that he will serve the national interest to a substantially 
greater degree than do others in the same field. NYSDOT at 218, n.5. Any waiver must rest on the 
petitioner's individual qualifications, rather than on the circumstances that (temporarily) prevent 
from filing a petition on her behalf. 
In addition, the petitioner cites to various articles pointing to a shortage and high turnover rates 
among teachers and English as a Second Language educators. The unavailability of qualified U.S. 
workers or the amelioration of local labor shortages are not considerations in national interest waiver 
determinations because the alien employment certification process is already in place to address such 
shortages. !d. at 218. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an 
issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor through the alien employment certification 
process. !d. at 221. The articles mentioned by the petitioner show that there is a demand for 
3 The list of debarred and disqualified employers is available on the U.S. Department of Labor's website. See 
http://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/HlBDebarment.htm, accessed on December 23, 2013, copy incorporated into the 
record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
qualified teachers, a demand that the alien employment certification process can and, in this 
instance, did address. Specifically, the petitioner is the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition 
classifying her as a professional under section 203(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. 
The petitioner contends that the recommendation letters and student progress assessment data for her 
kindergarteners at also demonstrate her eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. As previously discussed, the aforementioned documents do not show that the petitioner's 
work has had a wider impact on the field of early childhood education, or that her work has 
otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
Additionally, the petitioner points to her first-hand experience in learning and using a second 
language as a non-native-English-speaking teacher. Again, 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 United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
Labor. NYSDOT at 221. Any objective qualifications which are necessary for the performance of the 
occupation can be articulated in an application for alien labor certification. Jd. at 220-221. 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that engaging in a profession (such as teaching) does not 
presumptively exempt such professionals from the requirement of a job offer based on national interest. 
The petitioner has not established 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. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national acclaim, but the 
national interest waiver contemplates that her influence be national in scope. Jd. at 217, n.3. More 
specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the field of endeavor." Jd. at 
218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of demonstrable achievement with 
some degree of influence on the field as a whole"). On the basis of the evidence submitted, the 
petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be 
in the national interest of the United States. 
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 o[Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed .