dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

(b)(6)
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF M-T-B-M-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: NOV. 19,2015 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an elementary school teacher, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(2). The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed . 
The Petitioner has been employed as a teacher with the in 
Florida since September 2007. At the time of filing the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, the Petitioner was teaching at , in 
Florida. 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 
additional evidence. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available . .. to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or 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-
Matter of M-T-B-M-
(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. 
II. ISSUES 
The Director determined 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." Matter of New York State 
Dep't ofTransp. (NYSDOT), 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998), 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. Id at 217. 
Next, a petitioner must demonstrate that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Id Finally, the 
petitioner seeking the waiver must show that she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. Id at 217-18. 
The Petitioner has established that her work as a 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. 
Although 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. Id 
Furthermore, eligibility for the waiver must rest with the petitioner's own qualifications rather than 
with the position sought. Assertions regarding the overall importance of a petitioner's area of 
expertise cannot suffice to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. !d. at 220. At issue is 
whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such significance that she merits the special 
benefit of a national interest waiver, a benefit separate and distinct from the visa 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. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, original 
innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id at 221, n. 7. 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-T-B-M-
III. FACTS AND ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140 on July 1, 2013. Regarding her eligibility for the national interest 
waiver, the Petitioner stated: 
In my case, I am teaching elementary kids, 8 or 9 years old and stationed in one 
school, will my "simple" usually unnoticed 
job benefit the nation? I am just building minds, or do I really need to be a scientist, a 
Ph.D., a genetic engineer or the like to be given this privilege of the national interest 
waiver. My work goes beyond the bridge that was build or a stem cell that was 
discovered. I help kids realize they are important. . . . Unlike other in profession 
[sic], in teaching the result is not immediate but the offshoot of a well taught 
elementary children are [sic] better high school and college students and nation's 
professionals in the long run. 
If an engineer in a given place was granted the privilege under National Interest 
Waiver, because the bridge he built, maybe [sic] used by travelers from other states 
qualifying it as of national interest, I firmly believe, that by educating the young, [sic] 
is much more of national interest than any material products. 
The Petitioner appears to have misunderstood the factual scenario in NYSDOT. While the 
beneficiary in NYSDOT was a bridge engineer, he did not receive a national interest waiver. The 
decision in NYSDOT explained why that beneficiary 's employer had not established his eligibility 
for the waiver. 
The Petitioner 's statements concerning public elementary education as a whole address the intrinsic 
merit of education and the first prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis, which the Director 
found the Petitioner had satisfied. The overall importance of education alone, however, does not 
qualify every educator for the national interest waiver. Section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act subjects 
members of the professions to the job offer requirement, and section 101 (a)(32) of the Act states that 
school teachers are members of the professions. Therefore, the general importance of teaching, in 
and of itself, does not justify granting the waiver to individual school teachers. With respect to the 
Petitioner's activities as a school teacher, the Director detennined that the scope of the Petitioner's work 
and her impact on the field did not satisfy the second and third prongs of the NYSDOT national interest 
analysis. 
A. National in Scope 
The second prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis requires that the benefit arising from the 
petitioner's work will be national in scope. The Director stated that the submitted evidence did not 
demonstrate how the benefits of the Petitioner 's employment as a teacher in an elementary school in 
Florida would be national in scope. NYSDOT provides examples of employment where the benefits 
would not be national in scope: 
3 
Matter of M- T-B-M-
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 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. 
!d. at 217, n.3. NYSDOT specifically identifies a school teacher as an example of a meritorious 
occupation that lacks national scope. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the quoted passage 
represents "a pre judgment as to whether an Instructional Teacher will be able to qualify for the 
waiver. ... If this is the case no single school teacher may qualify for the waiver." Nonetheless, 
while the Petitioner expresses her disagreement with the quoted passage, she acknowledges 
NYSDOT' s finding that the impact of a single school teacher in one elementary school would not be 
in the national interest for purposes of waiving the job offer requirement. In addition, the Petitioner 
states that, as much as "teachers would want to get to multiple schools so as to widen their service 
area, the nature of the job will not permit it. . . . It has to be taken into consideration that, teachers 
are limited by the system they are into [sic]." With regard to following the guidelines set forth in 
NYSDOT, by law, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 will produce national benefits in the field of public 
education. 
The Petitioner asserts that elementary education forms the foundation for subsequent higher levels of 
education and that the United States will benefit from giving "Instructional Teachers a fair chance to 
obtain lawful permanent residence." As members of the professions, teachers are included in the 
statutory clause at section 203(b)(2)(A) that has the job offer requirement. By the plain language of 
section 203{b )(2)(A) of the Act, a foreign worker is generally subject to the job offer requirement 
(including labor certification) even if that worker's employment "will substantially benefit 
prospectively the ... educational interests ... of the United States." Employment in a beneficial 
occupation alone, therefore, does not qualify the petitioner for the national interest waiver. There are 
no blanket waivers for school teachers; users grants national interest waivers on a case-by-case basis, 
rather than establishing blanket waivers for entire fields of specialization. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 
at 217. 
Likewise, exceptional ability, defined at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given field, is not automatically grounds for 
granting the waiver. Therefore, an elementary school teacher with a degree of expertise significantly 
above that ordinarily encountered in the field of elementary education would not, as a result, 
necessarily qualify for the waiver. These provisions are found in the statute, and USCIS has no 
discretion to disregard or overrule them. Exceptional ability that will substantially benefit the 
United States is not sufficient grounds for approving the national interest waiver. We note that the 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-T-B-M-
national interest waiver is not a standard avenue for immigration. It is, rather, a special exemption 
from the normal requirement of obtaining a labor certification. 
As the Petitioner has not established that her employment as a teacher with the has an impact 
beyond her school district and its students, she has not shown that the proposed benefits of her work 
will be national in scope. 
B. Serving the National Interest 
The third prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis requires that the petitioner serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker with the S<.tme 
minimum qualifications. The Petitioner submitted her academic records; employment verifications; 
teaching certifications and licenses for Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico, and the Philippines; pay 
statements; membership documentation for the National Education Association and Florida Education 
Association; and various local awards and school recognition certificates. 
Academic records, occupational experience , licenses and professional certifications , salary 
information, association memberships, and recognition for achievements are elements that can 
contribute toward a finding of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). However, 
in this instance the Petitioner is seeking a waiver of the job offer as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. Pursuant to section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, foreign nationals of 
exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; they are not 
exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218, 222. Therefore , 
whether a given individual seeks classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree, that individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by 
demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in her field of 
expertise. The national interest waiver is an additional benefit, separate from the classification 
sought, and therefore eligibility for the underlying classification does not demonstrate eligibility for 
the additional benefit of the waiver. Without evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's work has 
affected the field as a whole, employment in a beneficial occupation such as a teacher, therefore, 
does not by itself qualify her for the national interest waiver. 
With regard to the submitted awards and school recognition certificates, particularly significant awards 
may serve as evidence of the Petitioner 's impact and influence on her field, but the Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that any of the awards she received have more than local, regional, or institutional 
significance. For example, the Petitioner submitted a copy of a "Certificate of Recognition" from 
the Republic of the Philippines Department of Education, Culture, and Sports, _ 
, thanking the Petitioner "for her efforts in the preparation of weekly 
plans for use of Multi-grade classes for Grades I and II in the Division of Antique for school year 
1995-1996." Additional educational resource material from the identified the 
Petitioner as one of 20 Grade I contributors to an English II workbook, but the submitted 
documentation does not show that her work in the Philippines had more than a regional impact. 
Although it is possible for a professional in the field of education to have a wider impact, for 
example by developing curricular materials that other teachers then adopt on a national basis, there is 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter of M- T-B-M-
no documentary evidence reflecting any such national implementation of the Petitioner's 
instructional material. 
In addition, the Petitioner submitted various certificates of participation and completion for training 
courses and seminars relating to her professional development. While taking courses and 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. 
The Petitioner also provided several letters of support from her colleagues and supervisors 
discussing her teaching skills and activities in the field. These individuals attested to the Petitioner 's 
talent, dedication, and contributions to her schools, but they did not indicate that the Petitioner has 
had the wider impact and influence necessary to qualify for the national interest waiver under 
NYSDOT. For example, a staff scientist at the 
stated: 
knows the Petitioner through the 
(of which is a board member and a former president). 
[I]t is clear that [the Petitioner] belongs to an elite class of elementary school 
educators. Her list of exemplary accomplishments ... speaks loud and clear as to the 
caliber of her contributions to the educational field. Foremost among this [sic] is her 
unique talent in teaching, using which is undisputedly the main factor 
in carrying [sic] score in 2011 FCAT Math Results from.the lowest 
4 countries [sic] in the State of Florida up to number 8 overall! [The Petitioner] is 
also one of the only three 3 rd grade math teachers from 
who made the 32 percentage point gain (46% to 78%) in 2010, 
which earned a one point up grade for 
While holds the Petitioner in high regard, he did not explain how the Petitioner has 
influenced the field of education as a whole (as opposed to her own classroom and school). 
Although indicated that the Petitioner has a unique talent in teaching using 
the record does not show, and the Petitioner does not state, that she developed the educational program. 
The Petitioner's appellate submission includes educational material, but there is no 
documentary evidence indicating that the Petitioner authored the material or that she is responsible 
for any educational improvements at a national level. 
The remaining letters of support are from local school officials, who attest to the Petitioner's success 
in the classroom but provide no evidence that the Petitioner has had a wider influence on the field of 
education. For example, district coordinator for the 
awarded to stated that the Petitioner "made significant educational 
contributions and reforms in the field of Math," but she identified no contribution beyond 
stated that the Petitioner's "students went from 46% proficiency in 2010 to 78% 
proficiency in 2011 .... This was a tremendous achievement for ; a school that earned a 
grade of an 'F' ... in 2010 then moved to a ' C'" due to the efforts of the Petitioner and two other 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-T-B-M-
third grade math teachers. The principal and assistant principal of also attested to these 
statistics. This improvement is a considerable one in relative terms, but does not show that the 
Petitioner has had a national impact on elementary math education. 
assistant principal of , stated: "I believe , if she be given a chance to 
write instructional materials in her field , [the Petitioner] would be able to share her strategies [with] 
all math teachers ofthe country. " The assertion that instructional materials written by the Petitioner 
would be influential , were they to come into existence , is speculative and therefore without weight. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12). A visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility 
or after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248 (Reg. Comm. 1978); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Comm. 1971). Additionally, we note that according to , Assistant Regional 
Director of the Department of Education at Philippines , the 
Petitioner's "multi-grade lesson plans and workbooks . .. were utilized in the _ 
Philippines " and that her work "made [a] significant contribution in the field of education. " 
However, there is no documentary evidence showing that the Petitioner ' s work was implemented 
nationally or has otherwise affected the field as a whole. 
principal of addressed the Petitioner's use of new technology, stating 
that the Petitioner "was the only teacher at to utilize" the Response System Clickers , a 
new technology tool in further asserted: 
That year, [the Petitioner 's] class scored the highest gains at _ and in the 
for the third grade on the FCAT Mathematics Asses sment. The following 
summer , [the Petitioner] conducted a Response System Clickers training for all thirty­
five teachers ... at ... and now the technology system is used in all third 
through fifth grade math classrooms at _ ... With this our math scores 
continue to improve each year. ... 
did not indicate that the Petitioner has influenced education beyond the Rather , 
she called the Petitioner "a great resource to our campus ." With respect to the cited example of the 
Petitioner 's work, her early adoption of "a new technolog y tool" indicates that [the Petitioner] was 
ahead of her colleagues at . but she did not develop the technological tool and therefore its 
use is not evidence of her impact on the field of education. An individual's job-related training in a 
new method, whatever its importance, does not reflect an achievement or contribution comparable to 
the original development of that new method. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221, n.7. 
English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program specialist for 
stated that the Petitioner "is definitely an asset to our program and to our ESOL students ... . Her 
expertise in handling multigrade and multilevel students in the same classroom setting has proven 
incomparable in assisting our middle and high school students. " did not indicate that 
the Petitioner 's methods have had, or will have , wider implementation . Instead , she stated that the 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-T-B-M-
Petitioner "would be a great asset to any educational setting" and should have "the opportunity to 
work and watch the immense progress and success of all students under her instruction." Although 
asserted that the Petitioner 
has provided valuable assistance as an ESOL-endorsed teacher 
for did not provide any specific examples of how the Petitioner's work has 
influenced the field of public education as a whole. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US Att 'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia v. Beer s, 4 
F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to 
uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); Matter of Caron Int 'l, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 19 
I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory 
opinions statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for 
making the final determination regarding an individual 's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not 
required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionable "). The 
submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
users may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the petitioner 's 
eligibility. Id. 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"). As the submitted reference letters 
did not provide examples indicating that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole, 
they do not demonstrate her eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner submitted other evidence, including documentation showing that while in the 
Philippines she helped to obtain a grant from that paid for construction, electricity , 
and basic furniture for the school where she worked at the time; and copies of her 2008, 2010, and 
2011 comprehensive performance assessments from The Petitioner, however, does not 
explain how the submitted evidence reflects 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 school where she has taught. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that she conducted a 
"Technology Inservice Training" workshop on the use of and 
. The record does not show, and the Petitioner does not state, however, that she 
developed any of these classroom technologies. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner also states that she "was equipped with education, training and 
experience which [she] applied to the underserved, low performing school of _ _, and 
because of [her] dedication the progress of [her] students were [sic] reflected in the FCAT [Florida 
Comprehensive Assessment Test] results." While the submitted test results show that the Petitioner 
was an effective teacher at , there is no documentary evidence showing that her work has 
affected the field of education as a whole. A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of 
achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. Id. at 219, n. 6. Improved test 
scores for one school do not show wider influence. 
(b)(6)
Matter of M-T-B-M-
Asserting that "new graduates from this country come and go, some lasts [sic] only for a month or 
two, because they are in constant chase of better place of work," the Petitioner implies that because 
of this, her services are in demand. Nonetheless, the unavailability of qualified U.S. workers or the 
amelioration of local labor shortages is not a consideration in national interest waiver determinations 
because the labor certification process is already in place to address such shortages. NYSDOT, 22 
I&N Dec. at 218. The issue ofwhether similarly-trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue 
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor through the labor certification process. I d. at 
221. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that "the labor certification process will delay delivery of 
[her] services to [her] students as well as the continuity of the system [she] had implemented," but 
the timing of the filing (such as the imminent expiration of her nonimmigrant status) does not 
determine eligibility for the waiver. The national interest waiver is not just a means for employers 
(or self-petitioning foreign nationals) to avoid the inconvenience of the labor certification process. 
Jd. at 223. 
The Petitioner states that her "case is far different from" NYSDOT because that precedent decision 
concerned an engineer rather than a teacher. The core findings in NYSDOT were deliberately broad, 
however, and the three-pronged national interest analytical framework is not limited just to 
engineers. In addition, the Petitioner mentions her work at and how she was successful in 
teaching her students mathematics. The record includes FCAT results and Adequate Yearly 
Progress reports reflecting the academic progress made by the students at in recent years. 
The Petitioner asserts that the recent improvements in student performance at prove her 
superiority to local U.S. workers. She states: "Should there be an U.S. worker ofwith [sic] the same 
qualifications as I have ... and can generate the same result as I did in the first place, I believe this 
school would not have remained at the bottom when it comes to students [sic] performance." 
Although the record shows that an overall improvement coincided with the Petitioner 's time at the 
school, the submitted evidence does not establish that she was largely or solely responsible for that 
improvement. 
The Petitioner continues: "[A]fter 5 years of teaching in this school, I was able to fully understand 
the background of my pupils, knowing where they are coming from is very important in designing 
classroom instruction which will answer the needs of the recipient." The Petitioner has not shown, 
however, that understanding her students' backgrounds and designing classroom instruction to meet 
their needs are characteristics that differentiate her from similarly qualified elementary school 
teachers. Regardless, there is no evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner 's work has had, or will 
continue to have, an impact beyond her school. The Petitioner also indicates that her impact as a 
teacher will be more widespread in the long term, as her students "will move around the country 
sooner or later" and that her influence on those students will affect their later lives and benefit their 
future teachers in other states. The Petitioner's assertion that some of her pupils may relocate at 
some unspecified time in the future is not sufficient to demonstrate that her work has already had a 
national effect or has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
The Petitioner asserts that raising the level of student perfotmance should be a determining factor for 
the waiver. The national importance of "education" as a concept, or elementary school educators as 
9 
Matter of M-T-B-M-
a class, does not establish that the work of one teacher produces benefits that are national in scope. 
!d. A local-scale contribution to an overall national effort to improve student performance does not 
meet the NYSDOT threshold. 
Lastly, the Petitioner correctly mentions that the standard of proof in this matter should be a 
preponderance of the evidence. In most administrative immigration proceedings, the petitioner must 
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). The truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality. !d. at 376. In the present matter, the submitted documentation does 
not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a waiver of the requirement of an approved 
labor certification will be in the national interest of the United States. 
As the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her work has influenced the field as a whole or has 
otherwise had any national effect on public education, the Petitioner has not established that she will 
serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker with 
the same minimum qualifications. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, the Petitioner has not shown that the 
proposed benefits of her work are national in scope. In addition, the Petitioner has not established that 
her past record of achievement is at a level that would justify a waiver of the job offer requirement. The 
record does not establish that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole or that she will 
otherwise serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. 
worker having the same minimum qualifications. 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. !d. 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 individual must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole"). 
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. 
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. 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 petition will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternative basis for denial. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
10 
Matter of M- T-B-M-
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of M-T-B-M-, ID# 14485 (AAO Nov. 19, 2015) 
11