dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-V-C-
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
· DATE: JAN. 14,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an educator and education advocate, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, and 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. See Section 203(b )(2) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 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. 
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-
(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 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. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A- V-C-
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, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Matter of New York State Dep't ofTransp ., 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 demonstrate that she seeks employment in an area 
of substantial intrinsic me.rit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must show 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, a petitioner must 
demonstrate a past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. 
The petitioner's assurance that she will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to require future 
contributions by the petitioner, rather than to facilitate the entry of a foreign national with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. !d. 
II. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on June 23, 2014, at 
which time he was working as a program assistant at a public charter school in 
The record indicates that he has worked as a preschool and elementary school 
teacher in the United States since 2007 and previously worked as an educator and administrator in 
the Philippines.. The Petitioner provided letters confirming his employment history, evidence of his 
credentials and certification as a teacher, documentation of his membership in professional 
organizations, and copies of training certificates and performance evaluations. He also submitted 
numerous letters of recommendation from former colleagues, supervisors, and parents of students, 
attesting to his teaching expertise and his positive impact on student performance. 
In an introductory letter, the Petitioner indicated that he is also a researcher, author, and education 
advocate, and that his mission is "to create programs, tools, researches [sic], studies, advocacies and 
projects for teachers and students for use in the entire US." Regarding his research, the Petitioner 
stated that his work as a preschool classroom teacher gave him the opportunity to conduct field 
studies and surveys analyzing curriculum and working conditions in children's centers, and that he 
gained another perspective for his research by working with different socio-economic groups in his 
position at He submitted copies of research papers he had written, including 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A- V-C-
,, 
The Petitioner asserted that he has written "several books for the education community," including a 
"peer reviewed and approved text," in addition to "different educators' resource materials such as: 
manuals, a book about an innovative teaching method for the US, and new curriculum designs for 
teaching to be used in the US." Supporting evidence included five "Approval of Review" letters 
from teachers stating: "I have reviewed the literary document authored by [the Petitioner] entitled, 
-
and hereby approve of the essential usefulness of 
its contents." The Petitioner provided letters from a teacher at and an 
administrator at acknowledging 
acceptance of that literary document and stating that it has been used as a reference material. Letters 
from the pastor of acknowledged 
acceptance of three additional works by the Petitioner, attesting to their "usefulness and service." 
The Petitioner also indicated that he authored an analytical study about the cuniculum of the 
in Maryland, where he worked as an elementary school 
teacher for three years. He stated that it "was much appreciated by the board of education and was 
also acknowledged by the Chief Academic Officer." He submitted a June 25, 2012, letter 
from chief academic officer of confirming acceptance of "A 
Developmental Analysis of the I Cuniculum," co-authored by the Petitioner, and stating that 
it "will serve as a reference and resource for the district." 
The introductory letter also included a discussion of the Petitioner's education advocacy work. He 
stated that he has "coordinated with different federal government agencies and high ranking public 
officials" on ongoing grant projects, including one aimed at creating a collegiate education program 
for former. inmates and another training teachers and others to write artistic prose literature. The 
Petitioner 
submitted a copy of the grant proposal he wrote about educating former inmates, and 
documentation confirming his submission of that proposal and an application for a grant opportunity 
under the Supporting evidence also included a January 7, 2013, 
letter from the office of Congressman The letter indicated that it was sent in 
response to the Petitioner's requests for assistance with his grant projects and immigration status, 
and stated: "With respect to grants, I review constituent grant applications for support on a case-by- · 
case basis. Accordingly, we would be happy to review a federal grant application executive 
summary to see if we would be able to support the application." Copies of email conespondence 
with the office of Congressman in which the Petitioner described his grant 
proposals and inquired about the Congressman forwarding support letters on his behalf, were also 
submitted. The most recent email from Congressman office, dated February 4, 2013, 
stated that the letters were in the process of being vetted. 
In addition, the Petitioner stated that he has been "the proponent and author of a US national 
advocacy" called the 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-V-C-
which he states "pushes for national reforms and advancements" in the American education system 
based on his research. He indicated that his work on this project is "in cooperation with several 
education associations" and involves coordination "with federal and legislative bodies," and that he 
has created a website for the The Petitioner submitted an "Advocacy Introductory 
Position Paper" for the and printout of a Facebook page entitled 
" which indicated that the page had 7 "friends." He provided copies of unsigned letters 
from officials at the Maryland State Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Education, 
respectively. The first letter, which indicated that it was a response to the Petitioner's request for a 
meeting with the State Superintendent of Schools, thanked him for expressing interest in doing 
business with the Maryland State Department of Education and encouraged him to continue his 
advocacy efforts. The second letter thanked the Petitioner for his "letter to 
containing such instructive insight into curriculum improvements and integrated approaches to 
teaching," and stated that the letter was "referred to the Office of Elementary and Secondary 
Education for review." 
As another aspect of his advocacy work, the Petitioner stated that he submits research studies to the 
U.S. Department of'Education's' Supporting documentation 
included a copy of a February 6, 2013, email exchange, in which a representative from the 
acknowledged receipt of an article submitted by the Petitioner and informed him that the 
reviews research on the effectiveness of educational interventions but cannot provide a timeline for 
the review process. 
The Petitioner further indicated that he has presented seminars for teachers and voluntary tutorials 
for the benefit of students. He submitted certificates from the 
in appreciation for two presentations he made in 2012. 
The Petitioner also provided a copy of a project proposal he co-authored for a volunteer program to 
assist special education students preparing for the 
program. 
and a Certificate of Recognition that he received from the principal and autism chair of 
in appreciation for his "Noble Contributions as the Author and Organizer" of the 
Initial evidence submitted with the Form I-140 also included copies ofteaching awards the Petitioner 
received, consisting of certificates from 
and 
In addition, the Petitioner indicated that he had received nominations for the " 
.' an outstanding teacher's award nomination presented all over the United States citing 
the best educator in 
the " He submitted copies of three nomination forms for 
2012 ' awards, which were completed on his behalf by two colleagues at 
and the president of In addition, the Petitioner submitted a 
copy of the December 2012 Newsletter, for which he served as an editor and author. 
The Director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the Form I-140 (NOID) on December 14, 2014, 
stating that additional evidence was required to establish eligibility under the analysis set forth in 
4 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-V-C-
NYSDOT. The Director indicated, in part, that the Petitioner had not shown how his work would 
have an impact beyond his own students, that he had not established that his research work had been 
published or implemented by others in his field, and that he had not otherwise demonstrated past 
influence the field. 
In a letter responding to the NOID, the Petitioner stated that his work has "achieved nationwide and 
national status," as demonstrated the acknowledgement of his "works and books" by "nationwide 
education organizations such as the " He indicated that he has self-published his books in 
order to share them freely with the American public, and that he has also posted his work "online in 
a website wherein it is being used and reference[ d] by many educators in different states." The 
Petitioner provided letters from two educators in Arizona and two educators in Maryland, attesting 
to their use of his work and its national significance. Three of the letters stated that his written work 
play~d a significant role in furthering the field of education. 
As further evidence of the "national reach" of his work, the Petitioner provided additional 
newsletters to which he contributed, including a November 2012 newsletter with a "Featured 
Members" article about the Petitioner. His NOID response also included a letter from the office of 
Senator as additional evidence of his "coordination with government officials" 
to advance his advocacy. The letter thanked the Petitioner for contacting the office and directed him 
to the "Constituent Services" and "Grant Assistance" portions of the Senator's webpage, stating that 
she "would be happy to write a letter for support for you to the appropriate agency" once he has 
found a potential source of federal money for his project. In addition, the Petitioner submitted 
evidence indicating that he reviewed a manuscript for the 
The Director denied the Form 1-140 on February 10, 2015, finding that the Petitioner had not 
established that the benefits of his proposed work are national in scope, or demonstrated a past 
record of specific prior achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. The 
decision stated that the Petitioner's prospective work as a teacher "is limited to a local impact," and 
that the record was insufficient to show the past impact of his research, books, or advocacy work on 
a national level. On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director overlooked facts and evidence, 
and that the previously submitted documentation establishes his eligibility for the benefit sought. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
Unlike the third prong of NYSDOT, which focuses on the individual and his or her past 
achievements, the second prong relates to the intended occupation and its proposed benefits .. Jd. at 
217. We agree with the Director's statement that the proposed benefits of the Petitioner's work as a 
classroom teacher would not be national in scope. However, in addition to his work as an educator, 
the Petitioner expressed his intent to conduct research and advocacy work regarding the 
advancement of the U.S. education system. As we find the proposed benefits of such work to be 
national in scope, we will withdraw the Director's finding on this issue. We conduct appellate 
review on a de novo basis. See Siddiqui v. Holder, 670 F.3d 736, 741 (7th Cir. 2012); Soltane v. 
DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004); Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 1989). 
5 
Matter of A- V-C-
As stated above, the analysis set forth in the third prong of NYSDOT requires a petitiOner to 
demonstrate that he or she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would 
an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. To do this, a petitioner must 
establish "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a 
whole." NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n. 6. 
The Petitioner has asserted that his research and writing have had a nationwide influence, and he 
submitted letters confirming receipt of his written work by teachers and administrators in Maryland, 
and Arizona, many of whom state that they have found his work useful as a 
reference material. However, the individuals do not identify ways in which his writings have 
changed their teaching methods, nor do they attest to the widespread implementation of his ideas or 
findings by others in the field. The record indicates that the Petitioner has submitted research studies 
to the but he has not shown that it was 
selected for use by that program. While the Petitioner stated that he has also posted his work online 
to be freely used by others, we find the record insufficient to support his assertions that his writings 
have influenced teachers on a national level or have otherwise had an impact on the field as a whole. 
Statements made without supporting documentary evidence are of limited probative value and are 
not sufficient for meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sojjici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). 
Regarding his role as an education advocate, the Petitioner describes his work on grant projects and 
his initiation of the advocacy group However, the record does not establish that he was 
awarded either of the grants for which he applied, nor does it include evidence documenting the 
effects of any activities. Further, while the Petitioner attests that he coordinated with 
government agencies and officials, the letters and emails that he submitted do not establish 
government involvement on these projects, but instead indicate that the Petitioner was offered a level 
of assistance routinely provided to constituents. 
The record establishes that the Petitioner served as a peer-reviewer for an 
article, and that he has been an editor and author for the newsletter. He 
did not, however, submit evidence regarding the circulation of these publications, or documentation 
showing that his contributions to them have influenced others in the field. In addition, the evidence 
demonstrates that the Petitioner has presented seminars and tutorials for teachers and students, but 
does not document the impact of those presentations . Finally, while particularly significant awards 
may serve as evidence of influence on his field, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the awards he 
has received are indicative of such influence. 
For the reasons discussed above, we find the record insufficient to establish that the Petitioner has 
had some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
6 
Matter of A-V-C-
IV. CONCLUSION 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced 
degree professional or individual of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a 
job offer based on national interest. In this instance, the Petitioner has not shown that his 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. While a petitioner need not demonstrate 
notoriety on the scale of national acclaim, the national interest waiver contemplates that his 
influence be national in scope. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. More specifically, a 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"). Considering the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not 
established 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. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-V-C-, ID# 14973 (AAO Jan. 14, 2016)