dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Elementary Special Education

(b)(6)
DATE: MAR 2 4 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citi zenship and Immig ra tion Services 
Administr ativ e Appeals Offi ce (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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: 
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 l-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision . Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http: //www.uscis.gov /fm·ms 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. 
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 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 in the field of elementary special education. 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 from counsel, two witness letters, and a manuscript article. 
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 increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .. .. " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., lst Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub.L. 101-649, 
104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991) , states: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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 judg ed on its own merits. 
In re New 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 consider ed when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establi sh that the alien 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 the alien will 
serve the nation al interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having 
the same minimum qualific ations. !d. at 217-18. 
While the nation al interest waiver hinge s 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 term "prospective " is included here to require future 
contributions by the alien , rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrabl e prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. !d. 
The USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordina rily encounte red" in a given area of endeavor. By statute , aliens of 
exceptional ability are gener ally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement ; they are not 
exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability . Therefore , whether a given alien seeks classific ation as 
an alien of exceptional ability , or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that 
alien cannot qualify for a w aiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on December 20, 2012. In 
an accompanying introductory statement, counsel cited the petitioner ' s advanced degrees, experience, 
licensure, compensation, and awards. All of these factors can contribut e toward a finding of 
exceptional ability under the various subsections of the USCIS regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). By statute , aliens of exceptional ability remain subject to the job offer requirement. 
See section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. Therefore, evidence of exceptional ability does not establish 
eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
Counsel stated: 
·_ [the petition er] has shown her uniqu e 
attribute[ s] as an educator in her efforts to appl y different strategies taught in various 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
classes. This was mainly because [the petition er] has good management skills. Her 
good management skills were evident when she recommended to the principal of 
the combining of her class with classes of 
teachers out of school for extended period[ s] of time because of illness and maternity 
leave, and students need[ ed] to review and take the SOL [Standard of Learning] tests. 
With keen management and with support of substitute teachers, the strategy of 
combining these classes in due time led to a great achievement of 3rct Grade students at 
~ Elementary School recording the highest passing scores on the 
State's SOL test since its inception . 
. 
. . [The petitioner was] involved with Saturday Institute for five years .... The 
program targets students who are at risk for failing the SOL exams in specific content 
areas. For the academic year 2008-2009, the 2nd and 3rct Grade levels under these 
programs made tremendous progress regardless of their race, disabilities or subgroups. 
On the State's SOL test, the students recorded 100% pass rate in Math , 91% in Social 
Studies, 83% in Science and 81% in Reading. The following academic year (2009-
2010), the 2nd and 3rct grade levels under these programs recorded a pass rate of 100% 
in Math , Social Studies and Science and 77% in Reading. 
The petitioner submitted documentation of SOL test scores over four academic years, from 2007-08 to 
2010-11. The organization of the data varies from table to table. Some tables show high performance 
by the petitioner 's students, while others show a decline . The "Preliminary 2010-11 SOL Writing 
Scores" table shows that the petitioner's students had an 82% pass rate in 2008-09, dropping to 77% in 
2009-10, and 64% in 2010-11. 
The petitioner's Exhibit I -1 inc] udes tables of "Student Achievement Data" at In an exhibit 
· list, counsel called Exhibit 1-1 an "Award for National Model of Professional Learning Community 
School." The exhibit, however , is not an award. Instead , Exhibit I-1 is a printout from the All Things 
PLC web site, providing test scores, demographic data, and other information regarding The 
information was provided by c ---- itself, as is evident from the use of first-person pronouns, e.g.: 
"This year we had a significant increase in our transiency levels." The last section of the printout, 
"Awar ds and Recognition Received by School and Princ_ipal," does not list an "Awa rd for National 
Model ofProfessional Learning Community School." 
The "Student Achievement Data" does not cite SOL scores specifically or identify an alternat e source 
for the figures provided. The figures in the tables do not match those provided by counsel. The 
"Grade 
3" table , for instance , 
shows the following data: 
Reading Math History Science 
2005-06 80 93 93 91 
2006-07 69 87 78 83 
2007-08 77 85 89 84 
2008-09 90 94 96 88 
2009-10 74 88 94 91 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The table supports counsel's general claim of "tremendous progress" in 2008-2009 compared to the 
preceding year, but most subjects show a decline the following year. The table indicates that in 2007-
2008, the petitioner's first year at _ _.._..., 3rct grade students scored lower in all four subjects than they 
had in 2005-2006 before the petitioner 's arrival. The 2009-2010 figures show a one-point 
improvement in History, with the other subject scores equal or lower than the 2005-2006 figures. 
The information in Exhibit I -1 , furnished by , also indicated: "Special Education performance 
was erratic due to some serious personnel issues but students were 29% above the state average in 
writing. Only 2% of our population is designated for special education services (excluding speech and 
language). " 
Furthermore, improvementof test scores at one school is an inherently local accomplishment. The 
petitioner cannot meet the "national scope" prong of the NYSDOT national interest test by improving 
performance at the local level. See NYSDOT at 217 n.3. Seeking to broaden the scope of the 
petitioner's impact, counsel claimed: 
is a nation al model and is nation ally 
recognized for closing the achievement gap between minority and majority students. 
[The petitioner] knew the nation al impact of what she is doing as an educator and a 
professional teacher not only in the local area [where] she is teaching but as replicated 
in other public schools and even in charter schools. 
Counsel cited no evidence to support the claim that the petitioner 's work is "replicated in other public 
schools ." Counsel asse11ed that the petitioner "creates models for our public school system that can be 
adopted in the national scale," but this claim amounts to conjecture. As counsel noted , the petitioner 
taught in the United States for five years before she filed the petition, and there is no evidence of 
national adoption of any innovation by the petitioner. There is some evidence that the petitioner has 
participated in presentations made to other schools, but the record does not show that these 
presentations focused on the petitioner's own innovations. 
The "national scope " prong relates more to the occupation than to the petitioner as an individual , but 
the record does not indicate that the work of individual teachers regularly spawns "national models" 
implemented throughout the public education system: Speculation about the eventual future adoption 
of the petitioner's work is not evidence that the petitioner has, in fact, created a "national model, " and 
counsel's 
assertion that the petitioner's work "can be adopted on a national scale" does not show that it 
actually will be adopted in that way. 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 ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). 
In the Exhibit I -1 printout, credited its adoption of the "Professional Learning Community 
(PLC)" process for the overall improvement shown in the test scores, and indicated that the "Principal 
trained all administrators in as it considers district -wide 
implementation of PLC. " This could support a claim that · ~J is a "model" at the county level, 
specifically with respect to implementation of PLC, but there is no evidence that the petitioner created, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
developed, or substantially improved the PLC process. The printout indicates that the school received 
several "accolades [as] a result of the ten-year PLC journey at ' indicating that the school 
began implementing PLC in 2002 or earlier, several years before the petitioner arrived there in 2007. 
Counsel stated: 
A lot of the proposed benefits from the Petitioner's ... work are dependent on her 
proven record of achievement and her unique and innovative set of skills, knowledge 
and background, more than mere minimum qualifications are required for the success 
of his [sic] proposed endeavors. Because [the] labor certification process is a 
standardized one that only related to minimum requirements of education and 
experience, such a process will not take into account these critical factors. In other 
words, many of the essential qualities that [the petitioner] has, which are so important 
to serving the national interest, will not be articulated in a labor certification process. 
Moreover, failure to consider these factors could result in a denial of a labor 
certification, because a U.S. worker with minimum qualifications might be found. 
The petitioner submitted letters from . teachers and administrators, as well as from students and 
parents. These witnesses praised the petitioner's role within the school, but did not show that the 
petitioner's efforts have had a broader impact on the field of elementary special education as a whole. 
A Teacher Evaluation Report dated March 4, 2010 includes an annotation that the petitioner "will 
make an impact on the national scene. It is just a matter of time." This expectation, however sincere, 
remains the opinion of an administrator at rather than evidence of the petitioner's existing 
influence on the field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted a proposal entitled "An Approach Towards Closing the Achievement Gap 
Between Students with Disabilities and Other Subgroups." There is no evidence that any school 
system has implemented the proposal. The date on the proposal is November 1, 2012, several months 
after her paid employment at.-- --- nad ended. The record does not show that school systems have 
enacted the petitioner's prior proposals (if any exist), or that those implemented proposals have had 
influence beyond individual schools or districts. The submission of a proposa1, with no evidence of 
the petitioner's track record concerning prior proposals, does not establish past or prospective national 
benefit. 
The director issued a request for evidence on February 27, 2013, stating: "The petitioner must establish 
that the beneficiary has a past record of specific prior achievement with some degree of influence on 
the field as a whole." This language derives from NYSDOT at 219 n.6. The director added that, if the 
petitioner received awards, the petitioner must submit evidence to establish the significance of those 
awards. 
In response, counsel stated: "The role that [the petitioner] will perform is definitely one that is superior 
in degree than any US worker, who would have the same minimum qualifications that she has .... 
Petitioner/Beneficiary possesses skills and leadership qualities that are indeed unique and meritorious." 
By statute, the standard for the waiver is not whether the petitioner is more 
highly qualified than a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
minimally qualified U.S. worker. The standard is the national interest. In the absence of statutory or 
regulatory guidance on this point, the NYSDOT precedent decision is the controlling authority relating 
to that standard. There is no blanket waiver for teachers, and being well-qualified for a teaching job is 
not sufficient grounds for granting the waiver. 
NYSDOT cited elementary school teachers as an example of a profession that lacks national scope at 
the level of individual teachers, despite the collective national importance of education. See !d. at 217 
n.3. To establish that the benefit from the petitioner 's work will produce benefits that are national in 
scope, the petitioner must do more than establish her skill at the classroom level. To that end, counsel 
stated: 
The Petitioner/Beneficiary's contributions to the field of education are so valuable and 
its (sic] impact is national in scope and character. 
Her study titled "An Approach Towards Closing the Gap between Students with 
Disabilities and Other Subgroups" in 2012 has been applied and proven effective at the 
_ Elementary School in raising the learning abilities of the students. 
This approach could be replicated in all schools in the US. In fact, the other 
neighboring schools have heard and used the approach developed by [the petitioner]. 
The record indicates that the petitioner's employment at ended in June 2012, more than four 
months before the November 1, 2012 date shown on her proposal. The petitioner submitted no 
documentary evidence to show that or any other school, has implemented the petitioner 's 
proposal. The petitioner herself, in an accompanying statement, mentioned the proposal but made no 
claims regarding implementation. Rather, she stated: "This proposal is national in scope and therefore, 
if adopted it will be of future benefit to the nation." 
Beyond her proposal discussed above, the petitioner stated: "I am willing to take on a project that will 
meet the needs of students [with] disabilities by forming [a] Non-Governmental Organization. I intend 
to apply for grants through various organizations to fund this project." 
An applicant or petitioner must establish that he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time 
of filing the benefit request. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). USCIS cannot properly approve the petition at a 
future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Conun'r 1971). The petitioner must establish that her past 
record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. NYSDOT at 219. At the time the 
petitioner filed the petition, there was no indication that any schools had implemented her proposal or 
that the petitioner had actually established a non-governmental organization to benefit disabled 
students. The petitioner's future plans along these lines do not establish that she was eligible for the 
benefit sought at the time she petitioned for that benefit. 
Counsel repeated the claim that the petitioner "made significant impact on the school I to 
become a national model for closing the achievement gap between minority and majority." The 
petitioner stated: 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
_ is a national and internationally recognized 
school for closing the achievement gap between minority and majority students and 
also a Model Professional Learning Community School. Base[ d] on this status, 
administrators along with their leadership teams from various school divisions in 
Virginia, Washington and North Carolina visited that site. 
The petitioner submitted further witness letters. 
representative on the stated: 
and later a 
[The petitioner] was selected by me to be the chairperson of my school leadership team. 
. . . Her selection was based on evidence of her ability to garner high student 
performance of students in her classroom and grade-level. The school had achieved 
national recognition for closing the gap (School 
__; the 
We achieved the status of becoming 
a national model school with the help of [the petitioner]. 
... Our school became a model because it received accolades and national recognition 
and celebration of performance ... . 
- - -
one of four teachers asked to assist in our conference presentation. It was then I noticed 
that she had the ability to influence teachers' response to under-achieving students. 
I formed an education consulting company . . . following my retirement. [The 
petitioner] assisted in presentations for teachers and teacher leaders on creating a high 
performing school at the local level so it was my honor to ask her to assist me when I 
was asked to consult with a newly re-districted school, 
North Carolina ... . Many called it "a segregated-high poverty school " ... or "a high 
demand and high poverty school. " The staff was very pleased with our workshops on 
how to become a high performing school and high expectation. In fact [t]he school was 
lauded for making a 7 percent point gain, moving them from a low performing school 
(less than 50% of students at grade level) to a School of Progress (60 to 80% of the 
students at grade level) at the end of the first year. 
The petitioner submitted copies of several awards that she received from J • These awards do not 
establish recognition or impact beyond her own employer. The petitioner did not submit 
documentation from other schools or school districts to establish the extent to which her achievements 
influenced the subsequent actions of those institutions. 
The recognition that received for "closing the achievement gap" went to the school as a whole. 
The testing data indicates that the petitioner had 25 or fewer students tested each year. The available 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
information does not indicate that the petitioner was disproportionately responsible for narrowing the 
gap. 
praised the petitioner 's abilities and 
listed her responsibilities, crediting the petitioner with a significant role in the school's "accreditation 
and adequate yearly 
progress ," but did not indicate that the petitioner's work 
had an impact beyond the 
school. 
Letters and certificates in the record establish that _ . __ has received some degree of outside 
recognition, but do not establish the extent to which the petitioner was responsible for that recognition. 
The only individual consistently named in these materials is 
The petitioner submitted documentation from the 
letter from that organization's chancellor, the who stated: 
In January 2013, [the petitioner) completed the Chaplaincy and Leadership course 
offered by our institution and received a Diploma. In addition to receiving a Diploma 
in Chaplainc and Leadership , she received her Minister's License from 
and a 
The petitioner's activity within her church and affiliated religious organizations is separate from her 
work in public education, which formed the original basis for the waiver claim. The petitioner seeks 
an employment-based immigrant classification, and her eligibility must arise from her employment 
rather from volunteer activities she performs outside of that employment. 
The Educational Leadership Award is open to all educators ... who have served for 
three or more years in l The educator selected 
for the Educational Leadership Award must demonstrate outstanding leadership 
contribution in the field of education. 
In : She -
was nominated and selected based on the significant impact she made at I 
Elementary School and her exemplary leadership qualities. 
The award described above is a local one. Favorable attention from a local church does not 
demonstrate or imply that the petitioner's contributions have influenced the field of elementary special 
education as a whole. 
The director denied the petition on July 12, 2013, stating that the petitioner had only met the first 
(intrinsic merit) prong of the three-pronged NYSDOT national interest test. The director acknowledged 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
that the petitioner is "an effective contributor in the field of education," but concluded: "The evidence 
does not show that the beneficiary's contributions are national in scope." The director quoted from 
several witness letters and listed a number of the petitioner's professional qualifications, but found that 
the petitioner had shown only that she "plays an important role for her employer." 
On appeal, counsel makes several assertions regarding the intrinsic merit of the petitioner's 
occupation. The director , in the denial notice, acknowledged that the intrinsic merit of the petitioner 's 
work "is apparent." The issue requires no further discussion. 
Counsel states that the petitioner and "other teachers have been documented in national videos used for 
training other teachers and administrators nation-wide." Three statements submitted on appeal discuss 
the videos. The petitioner herself states: 
In December 2011, I was asked by the Author of various books including 40 Reading 
Intervention Strategies for K-6 Students and Seven Strategies for Highly Effective 
Reader [sic], to be videotaped teaching various strategies outlined in 
her book. This tape is being used in universities, at conferences, workshops and other 
educational institutions that offer the course Elementary Reading Strategies, Grades K-
6 throughout the United States .... This is national in scope since this tape is being 
used in various states throughout the country. 
stated: 
I first met [the petitioner] when she was selected to work with me in the development 
of an online seminar based on a book I had written: 40 Reading Intervention Strategies 
for K-6 Students (Solution Tree Press, 2011). [The petitioner] was part of a small cadre 
of teachers that spent three days with me during the filming of the seminar as 
"participants " in a workshop. We later selected her to be one of the classroom teachers 
to be filmed using one of my strategies with her students. Her work with students in 
the video was outstanding and the online course is making a difference and having an 
impact on educators around the United States. 
_ in a new letter, asserts that the petitioner's "leadership ... was part of achieving 
a national status, and that the petitioner "and other members of _ ~ staff are documented in 
national videos used for training other teachers and administrators nation-wide." l stated: "I 
see her as a future teacher leader, school administrator or curriculum specialist ," although the 
petitioner herself, on appeal, does not claim these goals. 
The record does not establish the distribution of these videos. Furthermore, by the petitioner's own 
description, the video training materials depict "various strategies outlined in 
book" rather than methods that the petitioner personally developed. If the petitioner had documented 
the impact of these video training materials , they would have reflected s influence on 
her field, not that of the petitioner. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
Counsel states that the petitioner's "research is significant to the national interest of the United States 
of America, as it creates mechanisms and concrete ways of closing the achievement gap between 
students with disabilities and those who are functioning ... normally in a regular education setting." 
The petitioner submits a copy of ' '' a paper that the petitioner wrote in 
2013. The petitioner calls this paper an "unpublished article;" counsel calls it a "research paper." 
Referring to this paper and to the November 2012 proposal submitted previously, counsel states that 
the petitioner's "current research papers ... not only benefits [sic] the national interest, but will also 
encourage and promote the creation of high skill levels of employment in our country. " The record 
contains no evidence that the petitioner's research work has benefited the United States in this way, 
and therefore the petitioner has shown no prior history of influence that would justify the prediction of 
future influence . Counsel claims that the petitioner's "approach could be replicated in all schools in 
the US. In fact, the other neighboring schools have heard and used the approach developed by [the 
petitioner]. " The appeal includes no verifiable documentary evidence to support this claim . Going on 
record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden 
of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter 
of Treasure Craft of California , 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg 'l Comm'r 1972)). 
The record does not show that the petitioner's work had produced benefits that are national in scope at 
the time she filed the petition. Speculation that such benefit may eventually result from proposals that 
the petitioner wrote after her employment as a teacher ended in mid-2012 cannot suffice to meet the 
"national scope" prong of the NYSDOT national interest test. 
Turning to the third NYSDOT prong, counsel contends that "obtaining a labor certification on behalf of 
[the petitioner] would be an exercise in futility" and that the labor certification "process will not take 
into account these crucial and substantive factors of her capabilities and experiences." Counsel then 
states that the petitioner wishes "to sponsor herself . . . A self-employed applicant is not able to 
sponsor herself ' for labor certification. 
With respect to self-employment , 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 nation al interest to a substantially greater degree than do others in 
the same field. NYSDOT at 218 n.5. 
The petitioner states: 
My goal is not to remain in the classroom as an ordinary elementary teacher but to seek 
leadership positions where I will be able to have a greater impact in the field of 
education. I will continue to write articles and publish them in professional journals . 
. . . I in ten[ d) to continue making presentations and eventually become a consultant. 
If the above is taken into consideration, I believe that this would be nation al in scope. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
The initial filing of the petition did not refer to self-employment as a consultant. Rather, counsel 
called the petitioner a "professional educator" who "is licensed to practice her profession" and 
"authorized to teach or hold positions in Virginia Schools." The claim that the petitioner seeks to start 
her own organization 
first surfaced in response to the request for evidence. A petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 
1998). 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner's "non-participation [in] her current work would deprive the nation 
ofher exceptional and crucial contribution to the national interest." The record offers little information 
about "her current work" except that she volunteers at an elementary school and has prepared two 
unpublished papers since her paid employment ended in June 2012. All of the petitioner's documented 
achievements have been as a public elementary school teacher, rather than as the self-employed head 
of a "Non-Governmental Organization." The petitioner has not shown that, at the time of filing, she 
had ever led an organization of this kind, or had any of her work published. The assertion that the 
petitioner hopes to "eventually become a consultant" indicates no prior track record as a consultant. 
The petitioner's local work as a public school teacher does not establish a past history of national-scale 
achievement or influence as a researcher or consultant, or in unspecified "leadership positions." The 
waiver claim, as articulated on appeal, essentially amounts to speculation that, because the petitioner 
did well as a teacher, she will likely have national influence through research and consulting work 
once she begins those activities. 
The petitioner has not established a past record of achievement in her intended future occupation 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 interest waiver 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 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. 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 benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.