dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

(b)(6)
DATE : MAR 2 5 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Offic e (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave. , N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-20 90 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigr ant 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 pleas e find the decision of the Administrative Appe als Offic e (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.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. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief , Administrative Appeals Office 
·www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director , Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The 
AAO 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 an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a special education teacher at 
The petitioner taught at various ~ -- -~ 
, , beginning in 2007. 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 and supplemental exhibits. 
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 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 did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. 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 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 
90), P.L. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 
29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] 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 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. Id. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. Id. 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 te1m "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. Id. 
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 alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree , that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
In this decision, the term "former counsel" shall refer to . , who represented the 
petitioner at the time the petitioner filed the petition. On appeal, the petitioner states: "I do not have 
a lawyer ," indicating that is no longer her attorney of record in this proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISiON 
Page 4 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on July 2, 2012. In an 
introductory statement , former counsel stated that the petitioner's "petition for waiver of the labor 
certification is premised on her Master of Arts Degree in Education and more than twenty five (25) 
years of inspired , innovative, and progressive teaching experience in both the United States and the 
Philippines." Academic degrees and experience can support a claim of exceptional ability in the 
sciences, the arts, or business, under the USCIS regulations at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and 
(B), respectively. However , exceptional ability alone does not establish eligibility for the waiver, 
and therefore partial evidence of exceptional ability is not sufficient to show eligibility for the 
waiver. 
Former counsel did not directly address the NYSDOT guidelines. Instead, counsel listed the exhibits 
submitted with the petition, and stated: 
As demonstrated through the above-summarized and enclosed documentation , [the 
petitioner] plays a crucial role in the future of the improvement of United States 
education and the attainment of our nation's goals. The need for her skills is vast, 
particularly in a community so in need of educational support. 
The substantial impact that [the petitioner] already has had on her students, their 
families , her community, and the education field is already evident by her past 
achievements. 
The petitioner, in her own statement, listed 46 certificates she received between 1990 and 2012, 
recognizing activities such as service as a mentor and as 
a tutor, organizing a choir group, and 
coordinating various academic and professional activities. The petitioner did not establish that any 
of these recognized activities had more than a local impact or influence. Proposals and improvement 
plans in the record show that the petitioner was heavily involved in various plans for , but the 
materials do not show the significance of the programs beyond that one school. 
Regarding her "Action Plan in the United States ," the petitioner stated: 
I will continue to challenge my students to reach their utmost potential by posting 
higher order thinking questions during whole group discussion. I will not only focus 
on academic achievements, but social skills development. I will allow them to 
explore, discover, appreciate, and own their learning by providing rigorous classroom 
activities . I will expose them to 21
51 
century learning by integrating technology 
focused on Common Core and Project-Based Learning. 
The petitioner submitted copies of letters from school administrators, teachers, parents of students, 
and others. The letters were originally written earlier, for other Qurposes, between 2005 and early 
2012. For example, a January 31, 2012 letter fro assistant director of the 
Office of Internation al Initiatives at the thanked the petitioner for her 
participation in a mentoring program , and a February 17, 2010 letter from principal of 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
recommended the petitioner "for a scholarship in order to pursue 
her interest in attammg National Board Certification." The letters contained praise for the 
petitioner's abilities as a teacher and for her associated professional activities, but did not indicate 
that the petitioner's work has had an impact or influence on the field of special education as a whole, 
rather than at a primarily local level. 
Documentation of the petitioner 's students ' assessment scores appear to show high achievement, but 
the petitioner's impact in her own classroom is inherently local. See NYSDOT at 217 n.3. The 
record does not show that the petitioner 's work has had , or will have , a significant effect on student 
test scores on a national scale. 
The director issued a request for evidence on December 15, 2012. The director cited NYSDOT's 
observation that school teachers gener ally have only a local impact , and stated: "The petitioner must 
establish that the beneficiary has a past record of specific prior achievement with some degree of 
influence on the teaching field as a whole." 
In response, former counsel stated: 
Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90) which enacted .. . the 'National Intere st 
Waiver" included ' educators' as among the targets of this legislation , specifically 
stated - 'this bill provides for vital increases for entry on the basis of skills, infusing 
the ranks of our scientists and engineers and educators with new blood and new 
ideas. ' 
Elsewhere in the brief, former counsel clarified that the quoted language comes not from the statute 
itself, but from comments made by then-President George H.W. Bush as he signed the legislation. 
IMMACT 90 did create the national interest waiver, and the president mentioned "educators " in his 
remarks, but it does not follow that a blanket waiver for educators was either the intent or the result 
of the legisl ation . The same statute plainly Subjected professionals - including "scientists and 
engineers and educators " - to the job offer requirement. President Bush's remarks did not 
specifically mention the national inter est waiver , and should not be construed as creating a blanket 
waiver for educators. Such a construction would conflict with the statute's plain wording. 
Former counsel contended that the NYSDOT decision provided no specific definition of the "national 
interest," and that Congress filled this void with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act 
(NCLBA), Pub.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (Jan. 8, 2002): 
Congress has in effect remarkably engraved the missing definition upon the concept 
of 'in the national interest,' centered on the 'Best Interest of American School 
Children .' More importantly , U.S. Congre ss also provided the means to achieve this 
now defined 'in the national interest, ' i.e., 'Hiring and Retaining Highly Qualified 
Teachers.' Interestingly , "NCLB Act" also specified the 'Standard of a Highly 
Qualified Teacher.' 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
None of the phrases presented as quotation s appears in the text of the NCLBA. The term "best 
interest ," with respect to children, appears only in provi sions relating to homele ss students . The 
NCLBA contains no mention of the national interest waiver or any immigration benefits for foreign 
teachers, and it did not amend section 203(b )(2)(B) of the Act (which created the waiver). Former 
counsel contended that Congress specifically intended to make the waiver available to "highly 
qualified teachers " when it pas s
ed the NCLBA , and that "favorable decisions for the NIW [national 
interest waiver] teachers" are a means of "honoring the Congressional intent in No Child Left 
Behind Act of2001. " Former counsel , however , cited no specific language from the statute itself , its 
legislative history, or the implementing regulations to support this claim. The unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 l&N 
Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The petitioner offers similar assertions on appeal, to be addressed below in 
that context. 
Former counsel's response to the RFE discussed other federal initiatives beyond the NCLBA. These 
programs establish that the federal government places a priority on improving the quality of 
education, but former counsel did not establish that any of these programs had the express or implied 
result of changing immigration policy toward teachers. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act remains in 
effect , and therefore teachers , "highly qualified " or otherwise , remain subject to the job offer 
requirement. 
"Highly Qualified Teachers, " as a class, play a significant collective role in implementing the 
provisions of the NCLBA. It does not follow, however , that every such teacher individually 
qualifies for special immigration benefits as a result, or that collective benefit justifies a blanket 
waiver for every such teacher, when the waiver otherwise rests on the specific merits of individual 
intending immigrants. 
Former counsel claimed that the petitioner 's "proposed employment is national in scope ," but the 
assertions th at former counsel put forward to support that claim all concern the general importance 
of education , rather than the petitioner 's specific accomplishments. Former counsel asserted that the 
petitioner "plays a primary role in accomplishing the law's goal of closing the achievement gap," but 
former counsel did not explain how this role expanded beyond the confines of 
Former counsel claimed that the labor ce1iification process presents a "dilemma" because the 
petitioner ' s qualifications significantly exceed the minimum qualifications that an employer could 
specify on an application for lab,or certification, and "the employer cannot overstate the qualification 
requirement for the job offer nor can it tailor-fit in favor of the alien worker. " Form er counsel 
asserted that the "labor certification process ... may not meet the objective of employers to hire 
highly qualified teachers pursuant to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law." Former counsel did not 
show that these two considerations are incompatible. Section 9101(23) of the NCLB Act defines the 
tenn "highl y qualified teacher. " By the statutory definition , a "highly qualified " school teacher: 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
• has obtained full State certification as a teacher or passed the State teacher licensing 
examination, and holds a license to teach in such State; 
• holds at least a bachelor's 
degree ; and 
• demonstrates competence in the academic subjects he or she teaches. 
Former counsel did not explain how the above requirements are incompatible with the existing labor 
certification process, and the petitioner submitted no evidence that the labor certification requirement 
has resulted in the widespread employment of teachers who are less than "highly qualified." The 
minimum degree requirement is the same for labor certification as it is for a highly qualified teacher 
(i.e., a bachelor's degree). 
Former counsel requested "equitable consideration " of a Department of Labor debarment order which 
temporarily prevents PGCPS from petitioning for foreign workers. The threshold for waiving the job 
offer requirement is the national interest, rather than the inability of a particular employer to petition 
for an intended employee. 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 the 
self-employed alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than do others in 
the same field. NYSDOT at 218 n.5. 
The director denied the petition on August 28, 2013 , stating that the petitioner's proposed 
employment possesses substantial intrinsic merit but "is not national in scope," and that the 
petitioner had not established that her "proposed employment 
would specifically benefit the national 
interest of the United States to a substantially greater degree than a similarly qualified U.S. worker." 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's evidence, but found "[t]he evidence does not show that 
the petitioner's teaching strategies have been widely adopted by others in the field, or that the 
petitioner has been significantly recognized for her teaching strategies nationally ." 
On appeal, the petitioner states: "The national educational interest of the United States provides the 
proper prism through which the national interest waiver (NIW) application ... should be evaluated. 
Because the director gave insufficient weight to such national educational interest in adjudicating my 
petition, the decision is based on erroneous conclusion of law and erroneous statement offact." 
The petitioner discus ses the legislative history of IMMACT 90, and President Bush 's comments 
upon signing that legislation into law. The petitioner states: "Despite these congressional and 
·presidential pronouncements, the Acting Associate Commissioner in NYSDOT contended that there 
is ambiguity as to the precise parameters for implementing the job offer waiver under INA section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) ." The petitioner's use of the word "despite" implies that the "congressional and 
presidential pronouncements" contain no such ambiguity. None of the quoted passages , however, 
create or imply a blanket waiver for educators. Congress could have created such a waiver, but 
instead counsel applied the job offer requirement to professionals at section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, 
and defined teachers as professionals at section 101(a)(32) of the Act. Broad statements about how 
the United States benefits from the work of educators, or from the work of professionals in general, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
do not establish or imply that educators, as a class, are exempt from the job offer/labor certification 
requirement, particularly when the plain wording of the statute indicates otherwise. 
Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute itself. Pennsylvania Department of 
Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552 (1990). Statutory language must be given conclusive 
weight unless the legislature expresses an intention to the contrary. Int '!. Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers, Local Union No. 474, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Here, the 
petitioner has not established that Congress intended to exempt teachers from the job offer 
requirement, either through section 203(b )(2) of the Act, the NCLBA, or any other federal 
legislation. Congress's only direct statement on the matter has been to apply, not waive, the 
requirement. The plain wording of the statute applies, rather than waives, the job offer requirement 
with regard to professional educators. 
NYSDOT was not, as the petitioner implies, the first acknowledgment of a lack of a precise definition 
for the "national interest." When the Immigration and Naturalization Service published a final rule 
to promulgate regulations relating to the employment-based immigrant classifications reorganized by 
IMMACT 90, the preamble to that rule included the following passage: 
Some commenters also asked that the phrase "in the national interest" be defined. 
One commenter suggested that the phrase should apply to any alien who would 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational 
interests, or welfare of the United States. The Act itself requires this showing of all 
aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional," but adds the "national interest " test to 
permit a job offer waiver for certain aliens who have already satisfied the 
"prospective national benefit" test. The Service, therefore, cannot equate the two 
standards. Congress has not provided a more particular definition of the phrase in the 
national interest. The Service believes it appropriate to leave the application of this 
test as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien seeking to meet the standard 
must make a showing significantly above that necessary to prove "prospective 
national benefit." 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 will be 
judged on its own merits. 
56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900-01 (Nov. 29, 1991). 
The petitioner states: "With regard to the national educational interest .. . , there is no ambiguity. 
Congress has unequivocally spelled out in the NCLB the national interest underpinning public 
elementary and secondary education." The petitioner quotes various "salient provisions of the 
NCLB and IDEA," the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq. None 
of the quoted provisions, however, amended section 203(b )(2) of the Act or otherwise mentioned the 
national interest waiver. In contrast, the Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and 
Naturalization Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. 102-232, 105 Stat. 1733 (Dec. 12, 1991) made the 
national interest waiver available to members of the professions holding advanced degrees, where 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
previously it was available only to aliens of exceptional ability. Following the 1998 publication of 
NYSDOT, section 5 of the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999 amended the 
Immigration and Nationality Act by adding section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) to that Act , to create special 
waiver provisions for certain physicians. Congress not only can amend the Act to clarify the waiver 
provisions, but has in fact done so in direct response to NYSDOT. The petitioner has not established 
that the NCLBA or the IDEA indirectly implies a similar legislative change. 
The quoted statutes, and other initiatives such as Race to the Top , establish the federal government's 
priorities with respect to public education, but these laws and policies do not give national scope to 
the work of any one individual teacher. Rather, the goals described are collective. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, which subjects professionals (including teachers) to the job offer 
requirement, remains in effect. 
The petitioner describes recent changes to Maryland's assessment system and provides demographic 
infom1ation regarding students, but does not explain their relevance to the statutory job offer 
that remains in effect and which continues to apply to special education teachers. The petitioner 
states: 
I directly contributed to effort in meeting its 2012 AMO [Annual Measurable 
Objectives]in Reading and Math proficiency .. . . 
[M]y effective work in a high minority, high poverty school district positively 
contributes to closing the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority 
students, and between disadvantaged and more advantaged children, including those 
with disabilities, thereby advancing the NCLB goal of ensuring that all children reach 
proficiency in Reading and Math .... 
[M)y success in raising student achievement of my high minority, high poverty 
students, however seemingly localized in scope , has a ripple effect on the nation at 
large . 
The petitioner has not documented that the "ripple effect" from her work has resulted in nationally 
significant improvement in student performance. The petitioner states: "Based on the 2012 
Maryland Report Card . . . did not meet its AMO targets for Reading proficiency .. . and 
. . . Math proficiency " for some demographic subgroups, including minorities. By 2012, the 
petitioner had been teaching in for five years . Therefore , even assuming that the petitioner's 
work resulted in improvements within her own classroom, the cited statistics do not show sufficient 
improvement even at the county level. The information provided, therefore, does not show that the 
petitioner's efforts as a special education teacher (as opposed to the occupation of special education 
teaching as a whole and in general) have yielded results at a national level. Furthermore, when 
discussing improvement at the petitioner has cited the figures from 2012, but the data 
provided on appeal shows a subsequent decline in 2013. Regardless of the exact figures 
documented, the petitioner 's participation in an overall upward trend in test scores does not show 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
that the petitioner has caused test scores at other schools to be higher than they otherwise would 
have been. 
The petitioner asserts: "the employment of an alien, who has a track record of being an effective 
Highly Qualified Teacher in a high minority, high poverty public elementary school, benefits the 
national interest." The petitioner has not established that the direct benefit from her work has 
extended, or will extend , beyond 
The petitioner also states: "granting the NIW petition of a minority, such as myself, would also 
dovetail with Congress' finding in IDEA that the Federal Government must respond to the growing 
needs of an increasingly diverse American society." The national interest waiver is an employment­
based immigration benefit , and the petitioner has not cited any provision in any statute, regulation, or 
case law that justifies taking a given alien's ethnic or minority status into the equation. 
The petitioner claims: 
I have demonstrated a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on 
the field of public secondary education as a whole by highlighting specific prior 
achievements, which justify 
projections of future benefit to the United States ..... 
Specifically ... , my effectiveness in improving the Reading and Math proficiency of 
my predominantly minority and mostly underprivileged students advance the 
realization of the NCLB's national priority goal of closing achievement gaps. 
The petitioner submits no evidence that her efforts have closed the achievement gaps at schools 
other than J , and she does not explain how her work at could have raised the test scores 
of students at other schools. Local efforts in service of national goals do not, as a result, become 
national in scope. 
The petitioner states: 
My effectiveness as a teacher has been recognized beyond the walls of I have 
been selected to mentor Elementary Education student-interns of the 
, College of Education and to serve as an evaluator of their year-end 
presentations leading to their graduations. Also, international teachers from 
Singapore, China, Thailand and Indonesia have received mentorship from me .... 
Finally, I was instrumental in the introduction of Mandarin language instruction at 
which became the model adopted by other schools in _ __ _ J and other school 
systems in the state. 
To support the above statement, the petitioner submits further witness letters. Almost all of the 
witnesses are current or former , former principal 
of_ ~- - , stated: 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Outside the classroom, [the petitioner] was instmmental in the creation of a 
partnership between the school and the I · . As 
the member of the original committee and through this committee's guidance and 
monitoring, the instruction of Mandarin language at 1 
became the preferred model for elementary schools in Maryland and replicated not 
only in the school district but also in other parts of the state. Additionally, [the 
petitioner] served as Teacher Mentor to multiple undergraduate Education majors 
from the university's College of Education. 
With respect to , Mandarin language program, previously submitted documents identified the 
petitioner as "the Chairperson of the Scheduling Department of [the] World Languages Initiative." 
The record includes no evidence from any school 
other than or from state educational 
authorities, to show the adoption of~ _ _ _ Mandarin language program beyond . The record 
generally focuses on the petitioner's work with disabled 2nd and 3rct grade students in subjects such as 
reading and mathematics; her role in this foreign-language program appears to represent a departure 
from her usual duties rather than an integral or ongoing part thereof. 
a teacher of English to speakers of other languages at ., focuses on the 
petitioner's duties within and states that ~ _ - ~ _ "is a school system in desperate need of 
exemplary teachers such as [the petitioner]." Also focusing on the petitioner's work at is a 
general statement jointly signed by several dozen staff members, calling the petitioner "a 
dedicated and hardworking educator" who "displays an extra-ordinary professionalism. " -
mostly discussed the petitioner's work within that school, 
but also asserted that the petitioner "serves as a Teacher-Mentor" for "international 
student-interns." 
stated: 
I have had the opportunity to interact with [the petitioner] through my role as the 
liaison from the 
School. In this role, I act as support for teachers in obtaining university and outside 
resources and experiences for students .... (The petitioner] goes above and beyond in 
seeking out and taking advantage of resources to bolster her students' educational 
opportunities. Some examples include putting together a field trip to the Smithsonian 
Museum of Natural History and working to bring opportunities for art education 
towards completing a class-wide diorama project. She is a committed teacher, a 
thoughtful team member, and truly an asset to 
The above letter establishes activity by the petitioner outside of but her partiCipation in 
training new teachers at a local university does not expand her influence on education beyond the 
local level. That some of the trainees are "international Fulbright Scholars" does not make the 
petitioner's mentoring activities more influential than they otherwise would have been. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
Eligibility for the waiver depends on impact and influence not on one school, one district or an 
unspecified number of trainees from a nearby college, but on the field as a whole. The petitioner has 
not established such influence, and her assertions that the NCLBA, IDEA and other federal 
initiatives temper the requirements of the Act and NYSDOT are not persuasive. 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interestwaiver contemplates that her influence be national in scope. NYSDOT 
at 217, n.3. More specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the field of 
endeavor." !d. 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."). 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession, such as teaching, in the United States should be exempt from the 
requirement of a job offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the 
intent of Congress to grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given 
profession, rather than on the merits of the individual alien. Congress has created no blanket waiver for 
teachers or for any particular subset of teachers. 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. 
The AAO will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings , it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefitsought. 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 appeal is dismissed.