dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Instructional Coordination

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 2 8 2014 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrativ e Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
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 I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.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. 
Thank you, 
.))!JOAOl!dv c Ron Rosenberg 
· Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, initially approved the employment-based 
immigrant visa petition. Upon further review, the director determined that the petition had been 
approved in error. The director properly served the petitioner with a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR), 
and subsequently revoked the approval of the 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 as a self-employed instructional coordinator with 
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. The director based this conclusion, in part, on 
inconsistencies in the record that the petitioner did not adequately resolve. 
On appeal, the petitioner has filed a number of statements and briefs. 
Validity of the Revocation Process 
Before addressing the merits of the petition and the grounds for revocation, this decision will address 
the petitioner's assertion that "USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] committed a blatant 
abuse of discretion of authority by simply overruling itself, absent legal or lawful cause." 
The petitioner filed Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on October 13, 2009. The 
director approved the petition on February 2, 2010. Based on that approval, the petitioner then filed 
Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on February 26, 2010. 
While reviewing the adjustment application and supporting materials, the director found 
inconsistencies in the petitioner's various claims regarding her past employment and her work 
location. We will discuss these inconsistencies in greater detail further below in this decision, when 
discussing the merits of the appeal.1 These inconsistencies did not surface until after the director's 
initial decision on the petition. 
On October 18, 2011, as required by the USCIS regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 205.2(b), the director issued 
a NOIR, stating that the "inconsistency in the record ... raises doubts about both the truthfulness of 
the intended field of employment as well as doubts about the petitioner's eligibility for the requested 
waiver of the labor certification process." 
On appeal, the petitioner calls the revocation "an erroneous and impermissible abuse of discretion, 
resulting from summarily re-adjudicating an already approved petition, despite the absence of any 
indication or evidence of fraud, deceit, or any other affirmative wrong-doing by the applicant or the 
1 The director also cited concerns regarding the petitioner's academic credentials, which the petitioner has since 
successfully resolved. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
petitioner-company." The petitioner further asserts that, "absent a showing of such wrongdoing ... 
the Service ought to be bound by its prior decisions." In a personal statement, the petitioner details 
her family's acclimation to the United States, having "lived in the United States for almost 12 
years." 
Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1155, states: "The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any 
time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition 
approved by him under section 204." In terms of due process, the USCIS regulations at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 205.2 govern the process of revocation on notice: 
(a) General. Any Service officer authorized to approve a petition under section 204 
of the Act may revoke the approval of that petition upon notice to the petitioner on 
any ground other than those specified in 205.1 when the necessity for the revocation 
comes to the attention of this Service. 
(b) Notice of intent. Revocation of the approval of a petition or self-petition under 
paragraph (a) of this section will be made only on notice to the petitioner or self­
petitioner. The petitioner or self-petitioner must be given the opportunity to offer 
evidence in support of the petition or self-petition and in opposition to the grounds 
alleged for revocation of the approval. 
(c) Notification of revocation. If, upon reconsideration, the approval previously 
granted is revoked, the director shall provide the petitioner or the self-petitioner with 
a written notification of the decision that explains the specific reasons for the 
revocation. The director shall notify the consular officer having jurisdiction over the 
visa application, if applicable, of the revocation of an approval. 
(d) Appeals. The petitioner or self-petitioner may appeal the decision to revoke the 
approval within 15 days after the service of notice of the revocation. The appeal must 
be filed as provided in part 3 of this chapter, unless the Associate Commissioner for 
Examinations exercises appellate jurisdiction over the revocation under part 103 of 
this chapter. Appeals filed with the Associate Commissioner for Examinations must 
meet the requirements of part 103 of this chapter. 
The petitioner does not claim or demonstrate that the director failed to follow any of the above 
procedures. 
Revocation need not arise from "fraud, deceit, or any other affirmative wrong-doing" on the part of the 
petitioner. The Board of Immigration Appeals has stated: 
In Matter of Estime, ... this Board stated that a notice of intention to revoke a visa 
petition is properly issued for "good and sufficient cause" where the evidence of 
record at the time the notice is issued, if unexplained and unrebutted, would warrant a 
denial of the visa petition based upon the petitioner's failure to meet his burden of 
(b)(6)
- ---- ----- - ------
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
proof. The decision to revoke will be sustained where the evidence of record at the 
time the decision is rendered, including any evidence or explanation submitted by the 
petitioner in rebuttal to the notice of intention to revoke, would warrant such denial. 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988) (citing Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. 450 (BIA 
1987)). 
By itself, the director's realization that a petition was incorrectly approved is good and sufficient 
cause for the issuance of a notice of intent to revoke an immigrant petition. /d. Furthermore, the 
director had, in fact, identified instances in which the petitioner had provided material information 
that proved to be incomplete or incorrect, and properly advised the petitioner of those issues in the 
NOIR. 
The petitioner asserts, on appeal: "At no point previously, has the Service ever offered any 
explanation as to why the determination of the initial reviewing officer to issue an approv~l was not 
within the law, nor why it should not be upheld." The petitioner attributes the revocation to "what 
clearly appears to be arbitrary 'mood-swings'" on the part of individual USCIS adjudicators. The 
record does not support this conclusion. 
The petitioner, on appeal, also cites "Public Policy Considerations," stating: "The general public and 
the mainstream media focus on the issues of 'amnesty,' 'legalization,' and other ways to deal with 
the substantial undocumented alien population in this country," while "the large body of legally 
present non-immigrant aliens ... are left virtually unnoticed, and are given little to no consideration 
for their contributions." The petitioner's general assertions and claims regarding overall 
immigration policy do not establish error in this proceeding, and do not show that the petitioner was 
eligible for the requested classification. 
The petitioner claims that the director's decision "causes undue and unreasonable hardship for the 
[petitioner's] entire . . . Family, through no fault of their own." In her personal statement , the 
petitioner states: "All oui- children grew up in the United States, deeply rooted here, and for all 
intents and purposes consider themselves to be 'American."' While we are not unsumphathetic to 
the petitioner's claims, the approval of a visa petition vests no rights in the beneficiary of the 
petition, as approval of a visa petition is but a preliminary step in the visa application process. The 
beneficiary is not, by mere approval of the petition, entitled to an immigrant visa. /d. at 589. The 
statute and regulations contain no provision to consider claims of hardship in the context of an 
employment-based immigrant petition. 
The Merits of the Petition 
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.-
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(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. 
In the NOIR , the director raised concerns about the petitioner's foreign academic degrees. The 
petitioner 's response to the notice included several exhibits addressing the issue. The director later 
concluded that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
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., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 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 Dept. of Transportation (NYSDOT), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 
1998), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national 
interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 
Finally , the petitioner must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially 
greater degree than would an available United States worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
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 . 
The revocation centered on two issues: the merits of the petitioner's national interest waiver claim, and 
inconsistencies in the record. The following discussion will address each of these issues in turn. 
The petitioner's initial submission included an introductory statement signed by the petitioner, which 
referred to her in the third person by name or as "the Applicant." Regarding the petitioner ' s 
intended future work, the statement read: 
[The petitioner's] work benefits the United States on a nationwide scale, and is not 
limited or restricted to a localized setting or problem. 
The Applicant's work serves the national [sic] as a whole, and seeks to ameliorate 
critical and significant problems in the area of childhood education, healthcare and 
welfare of children, particularly those with cognitive, and developmental disabilities. 
[The petitioner] is widely recognized in her home country, for her work, as playing a 
foundational, pioneering role in her endeavor, through the use of new educational 
concepts which are crucial to address autism-related education issues in school 
systems, and which in turn could lead to an improvement of the already existing 
critical educational situation and could even forestall a further deterioration of the 
systems currently in place. 
The statement indicated that the petitioner, "as a self-employed consultant, by definition cannot 
petition [for] herself under current labor certification regulations," and the labor certification process 
would be unlikely to identify a United States worker "able to provide the same competence, gained 
through experience and significant insight into the problem at hand, and implement the unique, high­
level approached [sic) developed by and already successfully implemented by [the petitioner] 
abroad." 
The statement provided further details about the petitioner's intended work : 
[The petitioner] created a unique educational consulting company, which provides 
highly focused solutions in the area of Learning Disability Syndrome Student 
Education for schools and school districts nationwide. 
[The petitioner's] company, which she owns entirely, 
is based in Naples, Florida. 
(b)(6)
Page 7 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
With the aid of an individual, customized school-centred program, and the 
educational background and qualification of the consulting professionals, [the 
petitioner] will work with schools throughout the United States on a series of broad 
spectrum of ASD-related educational and human resource issues .... 
[The petitioner's] work will include teaching, advising, consulting, analyzing and 
training for all schools and school types . . . in all aspects of Autism Syndrome 
Disorder and related Learning-Behavior Disorders. 
She will assume the role of an independent consultant-advisor by applying/ 
administering a new integrated-structured teaching method and new-developed 
technology aids as a learning support. 
Among her day-to-day duties, [the petitioner] is also responsible for directing 
financial goals, objectives, and budgets. As such, when working with a school, her 
duties and responsibilities include, but are not limited to: 
• Assessment and evaluation of schools 
• Establishing minimum standards for each individual schools [sic] 
• Evaluating and adjusting existing curriculums 
• Implementing new adequate curriculum 
• Adapting a working inclusion policy 
• Use of the new teaching concept and strategy 
• Teaching and in-class support for ASD students through the new integrated 
structured teaching method 
• Assessment and evaluation of students 
• Implementing of new technology aids 
• Establishing educational requirements for each school 
• Collecting and analyzing school 
specific data 
• Staff training 
• Establishing parents relationship - collaboration and support 
• Introducing systems for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of a 
school's work 
(Evidentiary citations omitted.) Elsewhere, the statement provided details about "[t]he business 
concept, which [the petitioner] has devised and successfully implemented in Germany." The 
statement did not cite any evidence of the claimed successful implementation of the plan. 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)). 
Similarly, with respect to the claim that the petitioner has experience "as a specialized professional. 
educator for children with learning disabilities at all levels of public schools," the statement cited 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
"TAB 7/8." Tab 7 marks the petitioner's own resume, which amounts to the petitioner's claims 
about her experience, rather than evidence of that experience. !d. 
Tab 8 marks an unsigned, unattributed statement , entitled "Personal Background ," indicating that the 
petitioner's niece performed poorly in standard schools but flourished at "a specialized but 
expensive private school." The "Personal Background" statement did not indicate that the petitioner 
herself was responsible for the content of her niece's improved education. Rather, it indicated that 
her "personal experience with autism has resulted in a dedicated professional involvement in 
education and developmental disabilities." 
The statement, also, did not indicate that the petitioner's academic degrees related directly to autism 
education. Rather, it stated the petitioner "focused on research" in the area after she completed her 
master's degree. The statement cited "TAB 10" to support this claim. The evidence at tab 10 
consists of translated certificates relating to teaching examinations that the petitioner took in 1983 
and 1986. The certificates do not mention autism or special education, and they do not establish that 
the petitioner "focused on research" relating to those topics after she received her master 's degree in 
1986. Therefore , tab 10 does not substantiate the petitioner's claim to have conducted research. 
The petitioner submitted background documentation establishing the intrinsic merit of autism-related 
educational endeavors. These materials do not show that the petitioner's work has produced, or will 
produce, benefits that are national in scope, or address the petitioner's particular contributions to her 
field. 
Several witness letters (most of them translated from German) accompanied the initial filing of the 
petition. Prof. , dean of the Department of Educational Science at the 
Germany, stated that the university holds "the leading faculties in the field of Educational 
Science and Special Education within Germany and the EU [European Union]." Prof. stated 
that the petitioner "ranks, based on her strong vocational and academic background, among the most 
qualified specialists in the field of educational concepts and strategies for students with learning and 
behavioral disabilities." Prof. praised the petitioner's "unique approaches and strategies" but 
did not identify or describe them. 
A letter on the letterhead of the Department of Education and Training of the 
signed with the surname" "reads: 
During her internship [the petitioner] placed her work and research emphasis on the 
development of methodologically controlled teaching concepts as well as their 
intervention and prevention through schools for the education of children with 
learning and behavioral disturbed perception . 
In doing so, her work was focused on the curriculum development, evaluation studies 
of educational concepts , transfer, and organizational adaptation through schools and 
teacher training in the field of student with autistic disposition. 
(b)(6)
Page 9 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
The didactic approaches designed by [the petitioner] have significantly contributed to 
the promotion of schools, school development and improvement of educational 
outcome of learning-disabled children within the public school system. 
executive committee member of , stated: 
[The petitioner] is a nationwide acknowledged specialist in the field of education of 
children with autism syndrome learning and behavioral disorders and her work record 
demonstrates broad experience. Her academic and professional work in the area of 
educational concepts for students with autistic disorder is of substantial significance 
for the national education system. 
Mr. did not elaborate on the above assertions, for instance by describing the petitioner's 
"academic and professional work," her "educational concepts," or how her work impacted the 
national educational system. 
Dr. national deputy chair of , stated: 
[The petitioner] is known to me as a presenter at several symposia focused on topics 
as autism syndrome disorder, applied behavior analysis, positive behavior supports 
and instructional approaches. She also served as a member of advisory committees 
for autism special education issues in the context of public school education. Her 
contributions to school education concepts have raised the national standards for 
special needs education of autistic children. 
vice-chair of attested to the petitioner's 
membership in that organization and stated: 
The refinement of existing traditional educational concepts and development of new 
approaches and projects, initiated by [the petitioner], in the general education setting 
for the promotion, integration and improvement of school education for children with 
learning disabilities, especially autistic children, have made an outstanding 
contribution to improving education in schools. 
[The petitioner's] strong commitment to improving educational services for learning 
disabled students and her ongoing, successful work in this field, being her area of 
expertise, have gained general national recognition. 
One letter is translated from French. vice president of . m 
Belgium, stated that the petitioner "is liighly respected both as a person and a professional. She has 
contributed as a presenter in collaboration with the association on selected autism related education 
topics ... Her high level of professional accomplishment in autism teaching and educational [sic] is 
recognized as being among the top in her field of expertise." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
The letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions regarding the petitioner's expertise 
and contributions without specifically identifying those contributions and providing specific 
examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. The petitioner also failed to submit 
corroborating evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition, which CQuld have 
bolstered the weight of the reference letters. 
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has held that testimony should not be disregarded simply 
because it is "self-serving." See, e.g., Matter of S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328, 1332 (BIA 2000) (citing 
cases). The BIA also held, however: "We not 
only encourage, but require the introduction of 
corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available." !d. If testimonial evidence 
lacks specificity, detail, or credibility, there is a greater need for the petitioner to submit 
corroborative evidence. Matter ofY-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (BIA 1998). 
Any document containing foreign language submitted to users shall be accompanied by a full 
English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the 
translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into 
English. 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b)(3). None of the submitted translations meet this standard; they are 
uncertified, and the translator is unidentified. While users has considered the letters quoted above, 
they do not satisfy the regulatory requirements. 
The only letter originally written in English is from director of exceptional 
student education (ESE) at _ _ Florida. Ms. stated 
that the petitioner was "an essential part of the ESE team for two years during 2006-2008 .... Her 
valuable contributions and efforts to our ESE programs at all school levels have resulted in increased 
educational outcome." 
On December 11, 2009, the director issued a request for evidence (RFE), instructing the petitioner to 
"[ s ]ubmit a detailed statement by the beneficiary that describes in plain English, the significance of 
the beneficiary's accomplishments in the field, supported by corroborative, independent, 
documentary evidence." In response, the petitioner submitted copies of previously submitted letters, 
along with three new letters, all translated from unsubmitted German-language originals. Prof. 
l of stated: "The model of integration-pedagogy 
presented by [the petitioner] had been pioneering in nature in terms of objectives, needs, and 
applicability for the school inclusion and promotion of children with learning disabilities." 
An individual identified only as " 
stated: 
"from the 
[The petitioner's] most significant achievement was the development and 
introduction of a fundamental, pedagogic concept, the aim of which was and is to 
enhance and facilitate the introduction and inclusion of autistic children into the 
mainstream classroom in public schools. Her integrated, practical approach to 
solving this very evident educational deficiency was of such a leading character that a 
(b)(6)
Page 11 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
general change of thinking and reassessment in this area took place, with regard to 
school education of children with learning disabilities in Germany. 
A writer at the · identified only as " ," stated that 
the petitioner's "educational approach ... has lead [sic] to a directional change in the didactic 
fundamentals and practical requirements for the integration and inclusion of learning-disabled 
children within the autistic spectrum in the public classroom in Germany." 
The director approved the petition on February 2, 2010. In the NOIR, the director stated: 
"Generally, the record doesn't indicate that the beneficiary's education was focused in the area of 
special education," and that "[t]he record lacks objective evidence to indicate that the beneficiary's 
previous experience and accomplishments have prepared her to perform the described tasks ... [or] 
that the beneficiary has [the] appropriate level of licensing and education to perform the described 
duties in either a public or private school setting." 
The director added: "Even taking the claimed duties at face value, it is not clear that the proposed 
benefit would be national in scope. Aside from the ambiguous claim that the beneficiary's services 
would be provided "nationwide," there is no persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the described 
duties would be performed beyond a regional area." 
In response, the petitioner 
stated: 
[that her] work focuses heavily on redressing shortcomings in the U.S. education 
system with regard to handling the special needs and addressing the learning 
requirements of children who have a disorder within the broad autism spectrum. 
This issue concerning Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) is not and cannot be limited 
to a specific geographic locality .... Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders live in 
virtually every part of the United States .... 
[USCIS] cannot honestly make an argument that the Beneficiary's work is anything 
BUT nationwide in its scope and application. 
The issue is not whether ASD is nationally prevalent, but whether the petitioner's work presents a 
prospective national benefit that is national in scope. The petitioner's own "business concept" 
involves providing "tailored services" to individual teachers, schools, and school districts, which 
would limit the impact of her work to those districts. That the petitioner could, hypothetically, serve 
clients in various parts of the United States does not lend national scope to her work; the impact 
would still be limited to individual students or schools, rather than affecting the field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted copies of invoices from dated between August 2009 and August 
2010. These materials indicate that the company has conducted some business, as indicated on the 
petitioner's 201 0 income tax return, but they do not demonstrate that the petitioner's work has 
produced nationally significant results or that others in her occupation have done so in the past. The 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
petitioner blacked out the names and addresses of the clients, leaving no evidence that any of those 
clients are schools or school districts. The petitioner submitted no evidence to show that any school 
or district in the United States had availed itself of the petitioner's consulting service. 
The petitioner stated that her "work will initially begin 'close to home,' in Southwest Florida," but 
that, as her "unique methodology is accepted and implemented, one school at a time, one district at a 
time, the program will quickly radiate outward to other school districts, to state-wide levels, and 
eventually encompass regions of states." 
The above statement amounts to speculation about the eventual results of work that the petitioner has 
not yet undertaken in the United States. The petitioner's subjective assurance that her work will 
serve the national interest in the future is not sufficient to establish eligibility for the national interest 
waiver. The term "prospective" in the statute and in NYSDOT is used 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. NYSDOT, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 219. The petitioner acknowledged that "no U.S. experts in the field have yet had the ability 
to examine [the petitioner's] work first-hand" because the petitioner's "methodology is still new and 
relatively untested in the United States." The petitioner asserts that her plan will be so successful 
and effective that it "will quickly radiate outward" to cover significant parts of the United States. 
This unsupported claim does not meet the petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N 
Dec. at 165. 
The petitioner did not claim that her program has produced any results in the United States. Instead, 
the petitioner stated that "letters from relevant experts in the field ... are not only probative, but 
should almost be regarded as 'binding' on the Service, since it can be safely assumed that the 
Service (and its individual adjudicators) in all likelihood do not possess an equal or superior level of 
expertise regarding the subject matter at hand." 
Most of the witness letters referred to the petitioner's work in vague and general terms, and the 
record contains no verifiable documentary evidence to support the assertion that the petitioner's 
work has led to (unspecified) changes and improvements in Germany's handling of students with 
ASD. Even if the petitioner had corroborated her claims of impact in Germany, she has not shown 
that her intended work in the United States, providing "tailored services" using 
her "new and 
relatively untested" methodology, will be the same as what she claims to have done in Germany. 
Therefore, the German witness letters are not sufficient to establish that the petitioner's work has 
influenced the field as a whole. 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and have received consideration 
above. USCIS may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements submitted as expert 
testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791, 795 (Comm'r 1988). However, 
USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility 
for the benefit sought. !d. The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not 
presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as above, evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. USCIS may even give less weight to an opinion that is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. See id. at 795; see 
also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, 502 n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony 
does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. The 
letters lack not only detail, but corroboration. For instance, the letters refer to the petitioner's 
presentations at professional gatherings, but they did not identify the gatherings and the record 
contains no documentary evidence of the presentations. 
An exhibit list submitted with the petitioner's response indicated that the materials at "Tab 9" 
comprised documentation of her "Certification/Training in Autism Spectrum Disorders." Tab 9 
marks three exhibits: 
• An undated "Certificate of Completion" from the __; indicating that 
the petitioner completed "Autism & the Environment 101 Online Course"; 
• A "CME Credit Certificate" from "' 
" indicating that the petitioner "has completed 1 hour ;·of 
Category 1 CME Credit." The date on the certificate is September 25, 2011, 
nearly two years after the petition's filing date. The certificate does not identify 
the course the petitioner took to earn the credit. Notations on the certificate 
indicate that the "provide[s] continuing medical 
education for physicians," but the petitioner is not a physician; 
• A "Certificate of Course Completion" from Inc., indicating that 
the petitioner completed "the online class Autism Spectrum Disorders for 
Teachers." The class began on October 26, 2011 and ended November 6, 2011, 
meaning that the petitioner took the class after the director issued the NOIR. 
All of the above exhibits are in English. They do not show that the petitioner possessed any 
specialized training before late 2011, or while she worked in Germany a decade earlier. 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.P.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 Comm'r 1971). The petitioner's online course work in 2011 
cannot establish her eligibility as of the 2009 filing date. The same applies to a July 13, 2013 letter, 
submitted on a eal, showing the etitioner' s acceptance into an online Doctor of Education 
program at The petitioner claims to have been a recognized expert in 
autism education in Germany before she left that country in 2002, but she has submitted no 
verifiable documentary evidence to support that claim. 
Tab 10 of the petitioner's response consists of the petitioner's "Articles about ASD and Education ." 
A cover page reads: 
Among others, three articles: 
1. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 14 
2. 
3. 
For further articles you may visit: 
The identified web site consists of a home page with links to 15 papers (four in German and 11 in 
English), each naming the petitioner as the sole author. Each of the linked papers, in turn, is an 
abstract or excerpt of one or two pages, with the notation "The full text of this article or related 
articles can be requested by contacting the author." The petitioner's name appears at the top of the 
home page, indicating that the web site is her own. The three sample papers that the petitioner 
submitted each indicate that they are summaries or abstracts adapted from lectures or articles that the 
petitioner presented or published in Germany. For example, the site identified ' 
as an "Abstract from the full text 
of an article, _ 1-9, Germany, (2003)." 
The petitioner did not submit a copy of the original article or identify the publication that 
purportedly carried it. The petitioner identified the other two papers as summaries of lectures, but 
she did not identify the specific venues of those lectures. She claimed that one lecture was at a 
"symposium [in] Frankfurt, Germany, (1998)," while the other was in "Germany, (2001)." These 
materials lack basic information that would make it possible to verify the petitioner's claims. 
Previously submitted witness letters mentioned no articles, and referred vaguely to "lectures." There 
is no documentary evidence that the petitioner gave lectures or published articles in Germany, except 
for claims on her own web site. 
The petitioner did not mention the web site when she filed the petition. Until recently, the web site 
did not indicate that the petitioner had given any lectures or published any articles since her arrival 
in the United States in 2002. The dissemination of what the petitioner claims is earlier work does 
not establish the national scope of her current activities. Recent additions to the site include 
identified as an "[ e ]xcerpt of an article -
and 
identified as "a summar from the full text of the lecture 
(2011)." The web site 
does not identify any publication that carried the claimed 2008 article, or any conference or other 
venue where the petitioner delivered the claimed 2011 lecture. The petitioner has not established 
that any autism researchers or educators in the United States have used the materials she posted on 
her web site. 
2 We visited the identified web site on September 19, 2013, January 23, 2014, April 10, 2014, and April 28, 2014. An 
annotation on the home page claims that the site was "updated 11-05-2013," but the petitioner has added several 
documents to the site since that time. Earlier printouts show eight papers on the site as of January 23, 2014, and 13 as of 
April10, 2014, which has increased to 15 as of April28, 2014. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 15 
The director revoked the approval of the petition on March 26, 2013. The director noted the 
petitioner's claim that the petitioner's activities will eventually spread to a national level, but the 
director cited Katigbak and stated that the petitioner must be eligible as of the filing date. The 
director held that the claimed potential for future impact could not satisfy the "national scope" prong 
of the NYSDOT national interest test. 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's submission of witness letters, but found them lacking in 
detail. The director also asserted: "Generally, an individual who has changed national policy in an 
area would be expected to be able to provide evidence" to substantiate such a claim, but the 
petitioner failed to submit "objective evidence of accomplishments of .. . national significance." 
On appeal, the petitioner contests the finding that she has not shown that the benefit from her work 
will be national in scope. The petitioner states that the ·director erroneously considered the 
petitioner's work to be "a form of 'teaching,' in the traditional sense of the word," whereas the 
petitioner is "acting in a consulting capacity to other licensed educators." The petitioner states that 
her work will have national reach not through work with individual students, but because she "has 
devised a proprietary system, much like a 'blue-print,' based on years of her own research and study, 
which is equally applicable to any school, in any school district, anywhere in the United States." 
The record contains no evidence that any school or district has adopted the petitioner's methods, or 
that those methods existed in a finished form at the time of filing and were, at that time, available for 
adoption. The record contains no evidence to show that the petitioner's work has, thus far, produced 
benefits that are national in scope. Speculation about the possibility of future adoption of her 
methods does not establish national scope. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219. 
The petitioner states that she "will be securing the services of other like-minded, highly'-qualified 
educators who will be working directly under the Applicant's direction .... These educators will be 
screened, interviewed and selected nationwide, from a variety of different states, covering different 
areas of the United States." This assertion is, again, speculation about the petitioner's future 
activities. The petitioner does not claim to have established this proposed network of subordinates, 
and she has not shown that similar networks now exist. 
The petitioner states: "we have included ... a selected sample of job applications, in response to 
posted job offers, which the Applicant had run nationally." The petitioner submits a printout of a 
template job announcement for in the form of an electronic mail message addressed to 
.com, an online job search service. The message appears to be an unsent, unfinished draft; the 
"Sent" line, which would show the sending date and time, is blank. The message includes this 
passage: "Due to growth and development of our business is now searching 
for several experienced Autism-Special Educators and Educational Assistants for the following 
state/regions:" No 
list of states or regions follows? The petitioner submits no evidence to show 
when the job announcement publicly appeared. 
3 The announcement claims that "has built a reputation for excellence of providing school and educator 
development and support services for autism syndrome disorders and developmental disabilities related special education 
environments," but the job announcement is not, itself, evidence of that claimed reputation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 16 
The record contains no "job applications" as such, but the petitioner submits resumes and letters of 
interest from individuals in several different states. Several of these documents refer to events (such 
as graduations and employment) that took place in 2013. Therefore, the petitioner received these 
materials in 2013, several years after the petition's 2009 filing date. The resumes and letters of 
interest do not show that the petitioner was seeking employees when she filed the petition. 
Prior submissions from the petitioner did not indicate that the petitioner would delegate her 
consulting work to "other like-minded ... educators." It appears, therefore , that the petitioner has 
modified her claims regarding the nature of her intended work. 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); 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1) and Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49, which require that beneficiaries 
seeking employment-based immigrant classification must possess the necessary qualifications as of the 
filing date of the visa petition. Altering the proposed structure of the proposed business does not 
establish eligibility as of the petition's filing date. 
The petitioner states that USCIS "failed to appreciate entirely" her "imminent ability ... to create 
job-opportunities for un- or under-employed teachers throughout the United States, which is clearly 
a benefit on a national scale." The record contains no mention of job creation prior to the brief now 
under discussion. The introduction of this new claim does not show, retroactively, that the director 
"failed to appreciate" the job creation element of the petition earlier in the proceeding. The record 
does not show that the petitioner has created any jobs. The petitioner appears to have solicited the 
submission of resumes, but this does not establish that the petitioner subsequently hired anyone who 
responded. The petitioner has not established any track record of job creation, and therefore the new 
claim regarding her "imminent ability ... to create job-opportunities" is unsupported speculation. 
The petitioner observes that autism is a "nationwide problem." In her most recent submission, the 
petitioner submits "some recent articles regarding recent findings of autism in the United States, 
underscoring the importance of the Applicant's proposed work, the national scope, scale and need." 
The issue is not whether autism is a national problem, but whether the petitioner has demonstrated 
that her methods will produce benefits that are national in scope. The national scope of autism does 
not mean that the petitioner's activities are inherently national in scope, or that they were national in 
scope when she filed the petition in 2009. The petitioner has not demonstrated national-level 
activity; she has, rather, claimed an intent to pursue activity on that level at some point in the future. 
The petitioner acknowledges that "the proposed work, as documented, is a relatively new, 
proprietary approach, which prior to the filing of the 1-140, had not yet been implemented. 
Therefore, there was no 'past record' to be included in the record." The past record of impact on the 
field is a basic component of the NYSDOT national interest test. See id. at 219. US CIS will not 
disregard or waive this provision on the ground that the petitioner's technique is new and untried. 
The acknowledgment that there is "no 'past record"' is grounds for denying the national interest 
waiver, not for approving 
it. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 17 
The petitioner states that she "underwent ... specialized training in Germany" to deal with autistic 
children, but provides no further details or evidence. The record contains no evidence to support this 
general claim. See Matter ofSo.ffici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165. When the director specifically instructed the 
petitioner to document her specialized training, the petitioner responded with documentation of recent 
training in the United States. There are also credibility issues concerning the petitioner's claims, to be 
discussed further below. 
The petitioner contends that "the first USCIS adjudicator who initially approved the I-140 petition 
properly understood the subject at hand," but "[f]or reasons which the Service never disclosed to the 
Applicant or counsel, the Service simply took it upon itself, without apparent cause, to challenge the 
initial adjudicator's judgment and decision. This amounts to an arbitrary abuse of discretion." 
In the NOIR, the director had noted that "the petitioner's current employment appears to be 
inconsistent with the claimed intent to work in the field of special education." In the revocation 
notice, the director stated that the petitioner had not addressed this concern, and that: 
the petitioner's lack of full-time employment in her field over a multiple year period 
in the U.S. naturally raises doubts about her eligibility for the required waiver. ... 
The petitioner's inability to work full-time in her field raises further doubts about the 
benefit she has to offer her field. In this case, the record does show limited activity 
with the petitioner's business in her field. However, the majority of activity appears 
to have been in her translating business. 
In a subsequent appellate brief, the petitioner protests "the second adjudicator 's contention that the 
Applicant's work could not be national in scope or in the national interest, if performed at a level of 
less than full-time employment. " This is not what the director had stated, and the petitioner 's 
attempt to reframe the issue in this way does not resolve the issue. 
The petitioner asserts that she "has additionally obtained independent letters from some of the most 
authoritative sources in the United States and Europe." The petitioner cites two letters newly 
submitted with the supplemental appellate brief. A letter attributed to Dr. 
president of the , reads, in part: 
The position to be filled requires the services of a person with exceptional ability and 
qualification in the autism spectrum disorder special education field. 
The provided information clearly establishes that [the petitioner] possesses this 
specific qualification , ability and demonstrated achievements in this particular field of 
endeavor. 
It is therefore our professional opinion that [the petitioner] fully meets the standards 
of distinction, qualification and experience , as set forth by applicable federal 
regulations , regarding employment-based petitions and related matters, specifically as 
(b)(6)
Page 18 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
relates to the Applicant's professional credential, experience and nature of the work 
performed. 
The second letter, attributed director of 
_ (a Belgium-based organization with the initials ' from its French name), contains 
almost exactly the same passage, with non-substantive differences in wording in the last quoted 
sentence. 
The director revoked the approval of the petition in part because the petitioner had not established 
her credentials in special education. The new letters do not resolve this issue; they refer (in nearly 
identical language) to review of unspecified "provided documents," leading to the summary 
conclusion that the petitioner is adequately qualified for her intended occupation. 
Furthermore, the petitioner fails to explain how is an "authoritative source" regarding autism 
spectrum special education. The submitted letter describes the organization as follows: 
. is . 
. . the leading provider of _ m 
Europe. 
stands with individuals and organizations of all cultures and 
backgrounds to promote intercultural dialogue and diversity as a core value. 
Committed to enhance intercultural and interfaith understanding, through its 
ever-growing networks is actively contributing through innovative ideas to policy­
making processes promoting social cohesion through training, education, dialogue 
and advocacy. 
A submitted printout from web site states that is "the leading provider of 
_ in Europe," and exists "to promote intercultural dialogue and 
diversity as a core value." The same printout states that "Mrs. has 20 years experience in 
developing and delivering anti-prejudice diversity awareness training programmes." There is no 
evidence that as an organization, or Mrs. as an individual, has any expertise or 
authority relating to autism spectrum disorder. 
The petitioner claims influence over autism education policy in Germany, but has not substantiated 
that claim. The petitioner claims authorship of articles, but has not submitted copies of those articles 
or evidence of their publication, or even provided background information that would permit 
verification of the claim. A single web site that exists only to showcase the petitioner's work is not a 
sufficient, credible source of corroboration in this regard. The petitioner submitted witness letters 
praising her specialized training in autism education, but she submitted only a handful of documents 
relating to such training, most if not all of which date from well after the filing date. 
The petitioner maintains that labor certification is not an option because she is "a self-employed 
consultant" who cannot apply for labor certification on her own behalf The threshold for the waiver is 
the national interest, not an alien's inability to obtain labor certification. The unavailability of labor 
certification to self-employed aliens receives due consideration in appropriate cases, but the 
inapplicability or unavailability of a labor certification cannot be viewed as sufficient cause for a 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 19 
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. See NYSDOT, 
22 I&N Dec. at 218 n.5. 
The petitioner states that the adjudicator who revoked the approval relied on "arbitrarily created issues" 
as a pretext for revoking the approval of the petition. The petitioner states: "While the second 
adjudicator attempted to paint the Applicant's limited activity in a negative light, as though a legal 
requirement had not been met, the EB-2 NIW category makes no specific (or implied) mention of such 
a requirement." The petitioner asserts that she will not be able "to significantly increase the business 
activities to the desired and anticipated level" until she receives "her Lawful Permanent Resident status, 
rather than that of a non-immigrant. ... If the Applicant were eventually given the 'green light' and can 
take charge of the reigns [sic], there will be more than enough work to be performed year-round." 
In a separate personal statement, the petitioner states: 
In order for my company, to fully and truly 
thrive, I will need to hire additional personnel, expand the working hours, lease/rent 
more office space, I would need to travel significantly throughout the United States, 
advise and counsel significantly more clients, in order to satisfy the ever-growing 
demand and need. None of these growth-steps will happen should the U.S. government 
choose to send us packing. 
The statute and regulations contain no specific instructions or guidelines for the national interest waiver, 
except for provisions regarding certain physicians, at section 203(b )(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.12, which do not apply in this proceeding. In the absence of specific statutory or regulatory 
instructions, the NYSDOT precedent decision is the controlling authority. That decision requires (at 219 
n.6) "a past history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a 
whole." The petitioner has established no such history. The assertion that she will have a greater 
influence on the field once she becomes a lawful permanent resident cannot suffice to establish 
eligibility. The petitioner must qualify for the benefit sought at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. The expectation of future eligibility, 
contingent on prior approval of the petition, cannot suffice in this regard. 
The petitioner claims: "Several documents regarding the Applicant's work experience in Germany 
sufficiently confirmed her credentials and standing in the particular field of endeavor," and that the 
revocation rested on an "artificially raised evidentiary threshold in terms of past record of 
accomplishments or demonstrated influence." The record, however, does not support the petitioner's 
claims regarding that evidence. 
The petitioner claims to have "authored numerous papers 
and articles, in both English and German, and 
much of her work has not only been translated into other languages, but also have been cited by other 
scholars and researchers." The record does not support this claim. The evidence relating to the 
petitioner's claimed published work derives from the petitioner's own web ·site. The 
appeal includes a printout from a "Google Custom Search" of the web site, indicating 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 20 
that the petitioner "has been an expert author on .com since October 21 , 2009 and has 7 
published articles." The article titles listed on the printout match the titles of seven of the articles on the 
web site, and the printout shows that the petitioner added all of those 
articles to over a span of about three weeks, from October 21 to November 13, 2009. 
The record contains no primary evidence to show that any peer-reviewed journal has published any 
article by the petitioner in any language, or that any autism researcher has cited her work. 
The petitioner asserts that "much of the Applicant's work and research originated in the mid 1980's, at a 
time, where there was very little awareness of autism-spectrum disorders in general," and before the 
World Wide Web revolutionized the dissemination of information. The petitioner states: "the area of 
autism or autism spectrum disorders was largely unknown, unchartered [sic] territory until later in the 
mid- to late 1990's, when researchers such as Austrian pediatrician Dr. Hans Asperger (a pioneer in 
autism research) gained international recognition." Dr. Asperger died in 1980. The petitioner thus 
effectively acknowledges that some research in "the area of autism ... gained international recognition" 
years or decades after that research was performed. 
The petitioner submits a list of post-NYSDOT AAO approvals of national interest waiver petitions, 
covering a broad range of occupations. The nature of the beneficiary's occupation is not at issue. An 
influential autism researcher or pioneer in autism-related education may qualify for the waiver, 
depending on the facts of the individual petition. None of the cited decisions are published precedent 
decisions under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). 
The petitioner asserts. that the national interest waiver is not "reserved for the academic elite of only the 
world's best of the best, such as might be the case with Nobel Prize laureates, etc. But rather, it was 
clear from the legislative intent, that any qualified worker, whose work would benefit the nation as a 
whole, could avail themselves of this particular immigration avenue." The petitioner does not explain 
or expand upon this claim. With respect to legislative intent, section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act states that 
an alien whose employment will "substantially benefit prospectively the ... United States" is typically 
subject to the job offer requirement. It is true that one need not be of "Nobel Prize" caliber to qualify 
for the waiver, but in this instance the petitioner has relied upon questionable evidence to establish her 
credentials and past experience, while attempting to attribute her lack of recent achievements to factors 
such as her lack of permanent resident status and the embryonic state of her intended business. The 
petitioner must establish that her accomplishments qualify her for the waiver, not that the waiver will 
clear the way for future accomplishments. 
The director found that the petitioner had not shown that the benefit from her employment will be 
national in scope, or that she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than 
other qualified workers in her intended field. The evidence in the record does not support the claims 
that the petitioner has made regarding her expertise and experience in the field of autism education. 
Predictions of her future impact amount to speculation. The petitioner has not shown that it is in the 
national interest to waive the job offer/labor certification requirement that normally applies to the 
immigrant classification that the petitioner has chosen to seek. 
Inconsistencies 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 21 
The revocation rested in part on inconsistent or contradictory claims regarding the beneficiary's past 
experience and related matters. On Form I-140, the petitioner provided the following information 
about her employer: 
Date Established: 
Current Number of Employees: 
Address where the [petitioner] will work: 
August 9, 2009 
1 
The petitioner signed Part 8 of the Form I-140, thereby certifying under penalty of perjury that the 
petition and the evidence submitted with it are all true and correct. 
A printout from showed the same address shown above, and so did corporate documents. 
The petitioner submitted six "photos ofthe office," depicting: 
• A door and a plate-glass window bearing a sign reading "SUITE 200"; 
• A smaller, wall-mounted sign reading "200 I 
LLC"; 
• A video display of what appears to be of an alphabetical directory, showing 15 
business names beginning with "1 ,""A," or "B," including .. 
• A room with four leather chairs around a round table, and two wooden chairs on 
opposite sides of a smaller but taller square table; 
• An office with papers on a round table surrounded by three rolling chairs; and 
• The same table and chairs from a different angle, and a wall-mounted white board 
showing the handwritten words: 
Autism Spectrum Disorder 
""" ESE 
In her introductory statement, the petitioner stated that she had been "employed, in H -1B status, by 
based in Naples, Florida" until July 
31, 2008, and that she "currently holds H-4 visa status" which does not convey employment 
authorization. See 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h)(9)(iv). The petitioner's spouse entered the United States as 
an H-1B nonimmigrant, employed by Inc. 
In the December 2009 RFE, the director instructed the petitioner to submit Form ETA-750B, 
Statement of Qualifications of Alien, as required by the USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(4)(ii). The petitioner executed the form on January 12, 2010. Part 15 of that form 
instructed the petitioner to "List all jobs held during the last three (3) years." The form provided 
space for three such jobs, but the petitioner listed only one job, providing the following information: 
Name and Address of Employer: Naples, FL 
(b)(6)
Page 22 
Name of Job: Prof. Educator/Multiling. Specialist 
Date Started: 09/2002 
Date Left: 07/2002 
Kind of Business: Language School 
No. Hours per Week: Full-time 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Describe in Detail the Duties Performed: Prepare, adjust and integrate foreign 
nationals and speakers of other languages than English, in terms of exceptional 
education, for the entrance into the different levels of the public U.S. school system. 
By signing Part 16 of the Form ETA-750B, the petitioner declared under penalty of perjury that the 
information on the form was true and correct. Although the form had room for two other jobs, the 
petitioner did not list her employment at or her work with 
In the RFE, the director described inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims regarding her past 
em loyment and work location. The director noted that the petitioner did not list 
as a past employer, or as a present employer, on her Form ETA-750B. On 
February 22, 2010, six weeks after the petitioner executed Form ETA-750B, she executed Form G-
325A, Biographic Information. Instructed to list her "employment [over the] last five years," the 
petitioner repeated the information about and added the claim that she had worked as an 
"Autism-ASD-Educational-Behavioral Specialist" for 
Florida, from August 2009 to the present. Once again, the petitioner did not mention 
employment at The form cautioned: "Severe penalties are provided 
by law for knowingly and willfully 
falsifying or concealing a material fact." 
The director, in the NOIR, stated: 
USCIS research has confirmed that the petitioner received wages from the 
with [sic] from 2005 through 2008. Furthermore, the 
petitioner has submitted a letter from that organization indicating that the petitioner 
was associated with that organization. Recent wages from other sources are not 
confirmed .... [W]ork experience with this organization should have been included 
on both the Form G-325A and the Form ETA-750. 
Other records available to USCIS indicate that you are an officer of the company 
Inc. However, your level of involvement or employment with 
that organization has not been determined. 
Finally, USCIS has been advised of an October 2011 interview between Customs and 
Boarder [sic] Protection officers and the petitioner's husband . During this interview, 
the petitioner's husband indicated that the petitioner continues to be involved with her 
translating business. 
The director asserted that the inconsistent information about the petitioner's employment history 
raises overall questions of credibility. Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof m'ay lead to 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 23 
a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. at 591. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to resolve any 
inconsistencies in the record by independent objective evidence, and attempts to explain or reconcile 
such inconsistencies, absent competent objective evidence pointing to where the truth, in fact, lies, 
will not suffice. /d. at 582, 591-92. 
The director stated that the petitioner had repeatedly identified her work location as 
Florida, and had submitted photographs of her claimed office and a 
sign showing the suite number and the name of her company. The director stated: "The clear 
implication of these photographs is that they represent the petitioner's working space ... However, a 
search of open public records indicates that this address ... [belongs to] the ' serviCe 
The director instructed the petitioner to submit new information and evidence to provide a complete 
and accurate accounting of the petitioner's employment history and the actual, physical location of 
In response, the petitioner stated that her "work history may raise doubts, at first glance," but "a 
more detailed look and understanding of the various entities involved, will clearly show that [the 
petitioner] has not made ANY misrepresentations, nor taken any other affirmative actions which 
could be seen as untruthful or dishonest." The petitioner submitted a newly executed Form 
ETA-750B, indicating that she worked at as a "Prof. Educator GERMAN/ESOL ... (on an 
indep. contractor basis)" from August 2005 to August 2008, and as an "ESE Dept. VOLUNTEER" 
at the same school from August 2006 to August 2008. The petitioner did not claim employment at 
despite identifying that entity as an employer on Form G-325A and reporting income 
from the company. 
With respect to the petitioner's documented employment at , the petitioner 
asserted that she acted as a contractor through her company, The record does not support this 
claim. issued the petitioner Internal Revenue Service. (IRS) Form W-2 
Wage and Tax Statements, rather than a different form such as IRS Form 1099-MISC, 
Miscellaneous Income, used to report non-salaried compensation (such as compensation paid to a 
contractor). The petitioner's income tax returns show that she reported her income from 
under "wages, salaries, tips, etc.," and reported her 
income from separately, as "business 
income." All of this evidence indicates that both and the petitioner considered the 
petitioner to be a employee, whom compensated directly, rather than a contractor 
who received payment via 
Furthermore, the letter from (which never mentioned indicated that the 
petitioner worked with students with "Learning Disabilities." The petitioner herself, on Form ETA-
750B, indicated that the purpose of was to "prepare, adjust and integrate foreign nationals and 
speakers of languages other than English ... into the different levels of the ublic U.S. school 
system." On Schedule C of her income tax returns, the petitioner described as providing 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 24 
"Translator/Interoreter/Language Services." Only after receiving the NOIR did the petitioner claim 
that her work at was connected to her work with 
A copy of the oetitioner's 2010 income tax return shows that she continued to operate and derive 
income from She. reported gross receipts of $48,521 that year, with net profit of $35,497. 
Previously, on repeated occasions, the petitioner had claimed that she had stopped working for 
in July 2008. She put that information on Forms ETA-750B and G-325A, signing each form 
under penalty of perjury. 
The petitioner, in response to the NOIR, claimed that she returned to because of delays in 
processing her Form I-485 adjustment application. The petitioner asserted: "It would have been 
irresponsible for rthe petitioner] to close down or otherwise seriously neglect r 
in favor of the company, not knowing for sure if and when the 
Adjustment process would be completed." The petitioner's response to the NOIR included copies of 
tax documents from 2008 and 2010, but not 2009. This gap means that the petitioner has not 
supported the claim that she left in 2008 and returned to it in 2010 after the approval of the 
petition. The petitioner claimed more income from in 2010 ($48,521 gross, $35,497 net) than 
in 2008 ($37,423 gross, $16,550 net). 
In response to the director's request for "[a] statement clarifying the petitioner's activities with 
.1 the petitioner stated: "The entity was her 
husband's entitv .... At no time did [the petitioner] receive any compensation from 
Concerning location, the petitioner stated: "we would respectfully submit that the 
address is 
the office location from which 
) conducted its work." The petitioner claimed to have "enclosed copies of emails between 
[herself] and the property owner" and other documents "showing that office space and ancillarv 
services were used on numerous occasions." The' Jetween 
and indicates that the $250 monthly "virtual office plan" includes 15 hours of 
"Conference Room Usage" per month. The agreement also indicates, in all capital letters, "THIS 
DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LEASE." 
Regarding the petitioner's claim that she submitted "copies of emails between [the petitioner] and 
the property owner," the response to the notice includes a copy of only one electronic mail message 
from the petitioner to In that message, the petitioner identified eight occasions when her 
company used the conference rooms between August 7, 2009 and April 13, 2010 ;' once per 
month with no claimed use in January 2010. These dates indicate that the petitioner began using the 
rooms shortly before she filed the petition, and stopped using them shortly after USCIS approved 
that petition. The petitioner indicated "[t]here may have been some more" such instances, and asked 
to "check/verify the dates." The record contains no response from to verify or correct the 
claims in the petitioner's message. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 25 
Although the petitioner identified 's address as her work place, it appears that she used 's 
conference rooms one day per month, or less. The record does not show that the petitioner had 
access to any facilities other than the conference rooms; that she ever used the office space 
shown in the photographs she submitted; or that the sign printed with her company's and the suite 
number, 200, ever hung at the location. 
The petitioner identified the address not as her business address, mailing 
address or administrative address, or as a site that she would use "on numerous occasiohs." She 
identified it as the "[a]ddress where [she] will work." The petitioner's submission of a photograph 
of a sign showing the company name next to the suite number, 200, amounted to an affirmative 
claim that actual, physical, primary place of business. 
In the March 2013 revocation notice, the director found that the petitioner did not adequately address 
the inconsistent information regarding her past employment. The petitioner states that the director's 
December 2009 RFE "referenced some apparent inconsistencies regarding the Applicant's 
employment record, and the proposed work location," but that the petitioner then established "that 
there were in fact no 'inconsistencies."' The petitioner asserts that the subsequent approval of the 
petition demonstrates that the petitioner had addressed the issue to the director's satisfaction. 
As discussed earlier, the director did not revoke the approval for "reasons which the Service never 
disclosed." The director stated several specific concerns in the NOIR, as required by the USCIS 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 205 .2(b ). The revocation notice explained the grounds for revocation, as 
required by the USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 205.2(c). A finding that the petition was not 
approvable based on the record at the time of filing, and therefore should have been denied, is 
sufficient grounds for revocation. See Matter of Estime, 19 I&N Dec. at 452. 
The petitioner, on appeal, maintains that she "address[ed] all concerns raised by the Service" in the 
NOIR. The evidence that the petitioner submitted in response to that notice, however, raised new 
questions and left some old ones unanswered. For example, the petitioner claimed that she worked 
for as a contractor through but the record contains no evidence to support that 
claim. The IRS Form W -2 from 2008 indicates that paid the petitioner directly as an 
employee and reported that compensation as employee wages rather than non-employee 
compensation. There is no evidence that contracted with which the~ paid the 
petitioner. 
The petitioner contends that "[t]here were never any actual 'inconsistencies' in the Applicant's 
employment record," and therefore the claimed inconsistencies are among the "arbitrarily created 
issues" that led to the revocation. The petitioner states: "It is very important to note the crucial 
distinction between mailing address of the company, and 'work location,' which refers to the 
specific work-site where the Applicant will be performing her actual work and services to her 
clients." The petitioner asserts that there is a "distinction between mailing address . 
. . and 'work 
location,"' however, the petitioner had given the address of as the "Address where the 
[petitioner] will work" on Form I-140. 
(b)(6)
- ---------- - - - -·-----··-
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 26 
The petitioner states that she "was not a customer, but actually utilized the on-site 
offerings of " The petitioner claims, on appeal, to have been "renting 
commercial office facilities" from and to have submitted "copies of the lease agreement." The 
record, on its face, contradicts all of these claims. The petitioner submitted not a lease, but a 
which stated: "THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE 
A LEASE." 
Section 204(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(b), provides for the approval of immigrant petitions only 
upon a determination that "the facts stated in the petition are true." False, contradictory, or 
unverifiable claims inherently prevent a finding that the petitioner 's claims are 
true. See Anetekhai 
v. l.N.S., 876 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir. 1989); Systronics Corp. v. I.N.S., 153 F. Supp. 2d 7, 15 
(D.D.C. 2001); Lu-Ann Bakery Shop, Inc. v. Nelson, 705 F. Supp. 7, 10 (D.D.C. 1988). The 
petitioner has made inconsistent assertions regarding her work history and office location, and the 
director was justified in citing those concerns as grounds for revocation. 
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 interest waiver contemplates that her influence be national in scope. NYSDOT , 
22 I&N Dec. 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 record indicates that the director approved the immigrant petition in 
error, and justifiably revoked the approval. In doing so, the director properly followed all applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements. 
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 of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.