dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mental Health

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
PUBLlCCOPY 
DATE: OCT 3 1 2011 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
u.s. Department of Homeland ~urity 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (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 in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied by us in reaching our decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. The 
specific requirements for filing such a request can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. All motions must be 
submitted to the office that originally decided your case by filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with a fee of $630. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(I)(i) requires that any motion must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
Perry Rhew 
Chief, Adm inistrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks to classifY the beneficiary pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § I I 53(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The petitioner is a counseling center that seeks to employ the beneficiary as a mental health 
counselor. At the time the filed the the beneficiary was also a student at_ 
The petitioner asserts that an exemption from 
11ll';allOIl, is in the national interest of the United 
States. The director found that the beneficiary 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 and a new witness letter. 
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 
-Page 3 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for innnigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, IOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November 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. 
Matter 0/ New York State Dept. a/Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Connn'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 seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a 
substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum 
qualifications. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. The petitioner's 
subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The intention behind the term "prospective" is 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. 
The AAO also notes that the 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 petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on January 22, 20 I O. In an introductory letter that 
accompanied the initial filing, counsel stated: 
[The beneficiary's] eligibility for [the] national interest waiver ... is premised upon her 
documented statu[r]e as a Trauma Specialist with Certified Trauma Specialist status 
(CTS), whose contributions, training, and supervision has already successfully benefited 
Page 4 
numerous families in a vastly underserved population in The 
achievement of CTS status demonstrates that [the beneficiary] is among the elite in her 
field. That she has used her specialized knowledge to successfully implement the highly 
regarded Family Based Program at the is a testament to her extraordinary 
abilities with which she serves the U.S. national interests to a significantly greater 
degree than others in her field .... 
[The beneficiary's] mastery of the field of mental health, with a specialty in trauma and 
attachment disorders for children and families, has an application which is national and 
even intemational in scope, as family based trauma occurs throughout the U.S .... [The 
beneficiary] is able to perform therapy as a result of trauma, as well as effectively train 
and supervise other therapists in the field throughout the United States .... 
Furthermore, [the beneficiary's] work offers a cost effective alternative therapy by 
successfully implementing therapeutic tec.ues that avoid placement of children in 
restrictive environments in mental healtli facilities, such as hospitals, residential 
treatment facilities or therapeutic foster placement. As [the beneficiary's] field develops 
nationally, her successful work will contribute to reducing health care costs .... 
[The beneficiary's] accomplishments as a mental health caregiver with a specialty in 
trauma and attachment disorders for children and youth are extraordinary. [The 
beneficiary] is a Master Therapist working in a specialist mental health field, and she is 
a certified trauma [specialist] (CTS) .... Only those at the top of[the beneficiary's] field 
obtain CTS status. Her services are extremely important to the local populations she 
currently serves' as well as on a national scale .... 
[T]he supporting evidence amply confirms [the beneficiary's] status as a critical and 
seminal figure in the mental health field as a certified trauma therapist. Her eligibility is 
not premised on the labor market unavailability of "minimally qualified" U.S. workers 
in her field but on her indisputable stature as a national figure substantially contributing 
to her field. 
The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N 
Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter of 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980). The AAO will not take counsel's claims, such as 
the assertion that "[o]nly those at the top of [the beneficiary's] field obtain CTS status," at face value 
without credible and persuasive supporting documentation. With this in mind, the AAO will now 
consider the evidence submitted with the petition. 
The petitioner submitted copies of various diplomas and continuing education certificates, documenting 
the beneficiary's training and professional credentials. These materials establish that the beneficiary is 
qualified to work in her field, but by themselves they contain no internal evidence to distinguish her 
from other qualified professionals in the same specialty. 
-Page 5 
Apart from the above credential documents, the petitioner's initial submission consists almost entirelly 
of witness letters. Chronologically, the first witness to work with the ':""':"':"":'':' 
now team manager of children's services for the 
signed a letter containing the following passages: 
I have known [the beneficiary] since 1983 when she was t:IIllpHJY':U 
Social Worker at the then named 
shclwe:d [the beneficiary] to be 
a highly competent and insightful professional who displayed outstanding 
performance with great future potential in what ever aspect of social work she chose 
to concentrate, and over the past 20 years I have had the pleasure of witnessing her 
reach that great potential as a trauma specialist. Her excellent and diverse range of 
abilities clearly placed her in a position superior to that of her peers and to those with 
higher qualification .... 
I am aware that [the beneficiary's] history includes working alclngsidle 
at the internationally acclaimed orphanages of~where she gained a 
wealth of knowledge of the impact of neglect and non-attachment on the child 
populations .... [The beneficiary] has a substantive history with a total of 20 years 
plus experience working in the mental health field with children, families and related 
servIces. 
now director of behavioral health rehabilitation services and strengths-based 
signed a letter containing the 
following passages: 
I have known [the beneficiary] since September 2003 when I was her clinical lecturer 
uU''''c; her Based Certificate Program with the 
[The beneficiary] currently supervIses and clinically directs a highly successful 
program in the rural counties of .. Clearly the program's 
success ... is ultimately due to [the beneficiary'S] expertise in her field which is 
exemplified by her CTS designation and her obvious knowledge and insights of the 
challenging world of chronic mental health over and above other mental health 
therapists in her field. 
s] resume includes working with_ 
where she gained a wealth of knowledge 
of the considerable impact of neglect and non-attachment on the child populations. 
. .. [The beneficiary] has a substantive history with a total of over 20 years 
Page 6 
experIence working in the mental health field with children, families and related 
servIces . 
. . . I strongly attest that [the petitioner] has become a highly valued mental health 
resource in the counties which it serves since the launch of The Family Based 
Program in 2004 directly as a result of the expert clinical supervision and direction of 
[the beneficiary]. It is my considered professional opinion that The Family Based 
Program at [the petitioning stands above and beyond compared to other 
programs in the counties of under the sole guidance and 
specialized expertise and knowledge of [the beneficiary]. 
letters is very similar, and portions of the letters (such 
as the passages regarding virtually identical. 
The similarities do not end with the above two letters. 
I am aware that [the beneficiary] developed the Family Based Program for [the 
petitioner] in 2004. Through my work in a related field, I can strongly attest that [the 
petitioner] is a highly valued mental health resource in the counties which it serves 
since the launch it's [sic] family based program in 2004. [The beneficiary] is directly 
responsible for the reputation of [the petitioner] as a result of her expert clinical 
supervision and direction of the program. It is my considered professional opinion 
that The Family Based Program at [the' stands above and beyond 
compared to other programs in the counties of under the sole 
guidance and specialized expertise and knowledge 
~e from letter is almost identical to the fourth quoted paragraph from 
~ letter. It is not clear who actually wrote the shared passages. The AAO considers 
their similarities to be beyond coincidence. 
Most of the remaining witnesses are current or fonner employees of the petitioning entity, or have 
worked with the beneficiary in other capacities. president and chief executive 
officer of the petitioning entity as well as a professional nurse and licensed psychologist, stated: 
[The beneficiary] has distinguished herself as one of the top therapists that I have had 
the pleasure of working with. I do not foresee a successful future for the Family 
Based Program at the [petitioning entity] without [the beneficiary's] continued 
supervISIOn . 
. . . [C]hildren who have developed in the context of ongoing danger, maltreatment, 
and inadequate care giving systems are ill-served by the current diagnostic system, as 
Page 7 
it frequently behavioral control [sic] without recognition of interpersonal trauma and 
lack of safety in the etiology of symptoms, and a lack of attention to ameliorating the 
developmental disruptions that underlie the symptoms. [The beneficiary'S] work 
already directly addresses these issues, which is why the [petitioner's] Family Based 
Program is at the forefront of this challenging area of mental health care .... 
[The benefi~ed the first specialty family based program to be licensed by 
the state o~in 2004 .... The goal of the program is to stabilize children 
in their home to avoid placement in a more restrictive environment in a mental health 
This program serves a vastly under serviced population in_ 
Under her this program has become the most respected 
program part The success of this program is evidenced by a 
track record of a 1 % out for children who have been involved in 
this treatment model while remaining very cost effective .... 
We have been approached by an additional county in __ to 
expand our existing service to that area in spite of the fac~en 
closed to the addition of new providers. This is due to the reputation of [the 
beneficiary] as Lead Clinical Therapist and the exceptional and unique skills she has 
brought to this service. 
clinical director at the petitioning entity, stated: 
I have heard of [the beneficiary's] reputation long before I had come to work at [the 
petitioning entity] in 2008. Her reputation as a highly skilled therapist preceded her 
across multiple counties and mental health service lines .... In my 16 years of 
experience working in the mental health field I can confidently state that I have not 
encountered an equally comparable mental health professional to that of [the 
beneficiary] with likewise [sic] qualification or experience. She truly is a leader in 
her field of mental health therapists and supervisors .... 
There continues to be a national shortage of suitably qualified therapists in [the 
beneficiary'S] field .... [The beneficiary'S] CTS certification and Family Based 
qualifications enable[] her to playa direct key role as educator and trainer of mental 
health therapists everywhere in the U.S. In addition, [the beneficiary's] CTS 
certification status enables her to be called on into crisis/disaster areas ... throughout 
the U.S to provide trauma counseling services on an emergency need basis. Not all 
states in the U.S currently have trauma specialist certification programs available, so 
her ability to go and provide mental health counseling services in crisis/disaster areas 
around the U.S is a very important and unique characteristic that is national in scope. 
the petitioner's director of quality assurance, stated: 
Page 8 
[The beneficiary] has achieved . . . several accomplishments while working at this 
agency. First, she has completed the state mandated training on the Structural Family 
Therapy model, which is the foundation of Family Based Mental Health Services. 
Next, she attained the highly acclaimed status of Certified Trauma Specialist. ... She 
has been a pioneer in helping therapists at our agency understand and implement the 
Structural Family Therapy techniques to the families that they serve .... 
[The beneficiary] is exceptional in her abilities to stabilize families with long histories 
of failed services of mental health. It is fair and accurate to say 'they have been 
through the system and remain stuck' until embarking on the unique skills of [the 
beneficiary]. 
Based Mental Health Service at 
signed a letter that read, in part: 
I have known [the beneficiary] since May 2005 when I was then employed at [the 
petitioning entity]. ... 
The most remarkable quality of [the beneficiary] is her ability to stabilize chronically 
mentally ill individuals in their home and ultimately avoid hospitalization or other 
restrictive placements. . .. It is widely accepted that children are more likely to 
flourish and succeed in their homes as opposed to residential placements. It is also an 
undisputed phenomenon that it is more cost effective for the u.S to have children 
succeed in their homes with their families. [The beneficiary 1 shows expert command 
of this principle and her skills are exemplarily [sic] in achieving this. 
fell into a familiar template when she stated that the beneficiary's work "with_ 
in the infamous her] an abundant knowledge of the severe 
effects of neglect and mental health." 
program specialist with the 
•••• I11III •• stated: 
I met [the beneficiary] personally in September, 2007 when I was employed as 
Mental Health Program Specialist with_ ... 
[The beneficiary 1 shows remarkable expertise and understanding of her profession, 
and she is able to effect change in the lives of the people she serves .... 
[The beneficiary's] CTS certification together with her Family Based certification 
enables her to playa direct and key role as educator and trainer of mental health 
Page 9 
therapists. This addresses the shortages of qualified mental 
throughout the U.S., and immediately in rural and impoverished 
While_ was one of many witnesses who asserted that the beneficiary's work is national in 
scope, she indicated that the beneficiary "maintain[ s 1 a caseload of approximately 5 families" in 
addition to supervising four two-person teams (eight therapists in all). 
a licensed clinical social worker in stated: 
I have known _ for close to ten years and, through her, know of the very 
important work done by [the beneficiary], who developed the Family Based Program 
in 2004 for the [petitioner] .... Through her work, [the beneficiary] has an excellent 
success rate of working with families to stabilize children and assist them in 
remaining in their homes. 
child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director for 
" read, in part: 
It is very difficult to find and retain clinicians with knowledge and expertise of 
helping and treating these under privileged families. I strongly believe that a clinician 
with credentials that [the beneficiary] has is a valuable resource and doubtlessly is in 
the best interest of our country and this area in particular. 
... [The beneficiary] is directly responsible for the reputation of the_ as a 
result of her expert clinical supervision and direction of the program. 
letter, using the same language found in other letters, indicated that the petitioner's 
pf()gr'lll1 "stands above and beyond compared to other programs in the counties of 
under the sole guidance and specialized expertise and knowledge of [the 
"Someone with [the benleii<cial'y 
_ We do not have a similarly qualified person wClrking 
services she provides is overwhelming and chronic." was one of several witnesses to 
contradict counsel's claim that a worker shortage is not a basis for the waiver application. 
The witnesses who signed the letters quoted above are heavily concentrated in 
Most of the witnesses outside that area have demonstrable ties to the beneficiary, with the exception 
of (who claims no training, experience or expertise in psychology, social work, or 
related disciplines). 
Page 10 
The opinions of experts in the field are not without weight and the AAO has considered them 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). USCIS is, however, 
ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the 
benefit sought. Id The submission of letters from experts supporting the petition is not presumptive 
evidence of eligibility; USCIS may, as the AAO has done above, evaluate the content of those letters 
as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id at 795. USCIS may even give less weight 
to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id at 795; see also Matter ofSoffici, 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 letters considered above primarily contain bare assertions of widespread recognition and vague 
claims of contributions without specifically identifying contributions and specific 
examples of how those contributions have influenced the field outside The 
appearance of identical or nearly identical passages in several supposedly independent letters raises 
the important question of who actually wrote those letters. 
Furthermore, the record lacks evidence to corroborate key factual claims, such as the assertion that 
CTS certification is a rare and prestigious credential that places the beneficiary among the elite of 
her profession. The petitioner submitted a copy of the application instructions for CTS certification. 
The listed requirements include "2000 hours experience in counseling specific to trauma," "High 
School Diploma or GED," and "240 clock hours of trauma specific education and training." The 
record contains no evidentiary support for counsel's claim that "[o]nly those at the top of [the 
beneficiary's] field obtain CTS status," and the documentation from the entity responsible for CTS 
certification appears to contradict that claim. 
On April I, 20 I 0, the director issued a notice of intent to deny the petition. The director stated that 
the petitioner must show that the beneficiary has "a past record of specific prior achievement with 
some degree of influence on [her] field as a whole." The director found that the petitioner had not 
established that the beneficiary's intended work would be national in scope. 
In response, counsel asserted that the beneficiary's work has national scope because some of her 
patients and former trainees "have moved from various other regions of the 
U.S., thereby enabling them to benefit their new regions," and because "she serves families with 
adopted children, both internationally and across state lines." Counsel repeats this argument on 
appeal, and the AAO will address it in that context. 
Furthermore, the record does not show that the beneficiary has personally developed new strategies 
or methodologies for patient treatment. It therefore appears that her training of subordinates simply 
amounts to passing along the same skills and techniques that she received from those who trained 
her. The beneficiary's use and passing along of these methods appears, in some ways, to mirror the 
situation of the alien beneticiary in Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation: 
-Page 11 
An alien's job-related training in a new method, whatever its importance, cannot be 
considered to be an achievement or contribution comparable to the innovation of that 
new method. While innovation of a new method is of greater importance than mere 
training in that method, it must be stressed that such innovation is not always 
sufficient to meet the national interest threshold. For example, an alien cannot secure 
a national interest waiver simply by demonstrating that he or she holds a patent. 
Whether the specific innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case 
by case basis. 
Jd. at 221 n.7. 
The petitioner's response to the notice, like the petitioner's initial submission, consisted almost 
entirely of witness letters. As before, most of the witnesses are from Three 
letters are from the families of some of the beneficiary's patients. All three families live in 
the same town as the petitioner's location. These witnesses praised the 
beneficiary's abilities as a therapist. The beneficiary's skill and competence are not in question in 
this proceeding. The issue, instead, is whether the beneficiary stands out from her peers in such a 
way that her work benefits not only her patients and her employer, but has a wider influence on her 
field. Anecdotal patient statements cannot establish that level of influence. 
Two witnesses had previously provided letters with the initial submission. repeated 
counsel's assertions that patients and trainees will move to other parts country, and also 
asserted that the petitioner's CTS certification "along with her experience working as a disaster 
responder in the UK ... allows her to be a valuable asset across the US if she were called on in a 
major disaster or crisis by the 'These hypothetical assertions do not establish that the 
beneficiary's occupation is inherently national in scope. 
asserted that the beneficiary "was called upon by county officials to assist as a front 
assist and aid" after "the isaster struck a major area of the ••• 
_ asserted that "her experience during this time would more than adequately 
equip her with the skills necessary to respond effectively to any other disaster or crisis across the 
United States." The record does not show that the beneficiary's work in_had a national impact 
or any significant influence beyond the individual patients she counseled after the disaster. The 
limited scope of one-on-one patient care does not take on greater significance as a result of the 
circumstances that led the patient to require care. 
director of the ••••••••••••••••••••• offered 
assertion that the beneficiary's patients and trainees have moved to other states, and that 
the beneficiary has succeeded in a clinical setting where others have failed. 
executi ve director where the beneficiary worked from 
2004 to 2005, signed a letter that fits the template of several of the earlier letters, such as the 
following passage: 
Page 12 
I am aware that [the beneficiary's] history includes working alongside 
at the internationally acclaimed where she gained a 
wealth of knowledge of the impact of neglect and non-attachment on the child 
populations .... [The beneficiary] has a substantive history with a total of 20 years 
plus experience working in the mental health field with children, families and related 
servIces. 
~sserted that the beneficiary "continues to remain an influential source in her field," but 
the record is devoid of objective documentation of that claimed influence. 
a clinical consultant at repeats previously advanced 
arguments rei~ar,dirlg the importance of the beneficiary'S work, the superiority of her skill, and "a 
national shortage of suitably qualified and experienced therapists in [the beneficiary's] field." 
former 
Association, stated that he became aware of the beneficiary'S work through his acquaintance with 
one of the petitioner's employees whom the beneficiary had trained. _claimed that the 
beneficiary'S CTS certification "is a coveted official document only afforded to a small number in 
the state The record contains nothing from the to confirm this claim, and a 
multiplicity of vague third-party witness statements, whatever their number, cannot take the place of 
direct, first-hand evidence in this regard . 
••••• asserted that the beneficiary "has and continues to produce and implement supporting 
documentation policies ... to pioneer change at a national level regarding training standards for both 
mental health professionals and supervisors and directors within the family based program." The 
record does not document the nature or extent of this ill-defined "change at a national level." 
a school psychologist at the stated 
that he does not know the beneficiary of an 
unnamed relative at the petitioning entity. (The AAO notes his shared surname with _ 
__ asserted that the beneficiary "pioneered and directed [the petitioner's family based 
program] by creating treatment procedures and completing mandatory documentation for the 
program required by the state." His letter contained no other details about the "treatment 
procedures. " 
The director denied the petition on June 14,2010. The director found that the petitioner's evidence 
"did not demonstrate that the [beneficiary] had influenced her field overall to a greater extent than 
other mental health counselors." The director noted that the petitioner had relied heavily on letters 
from witnesses who speculated about the possible future impact of the beneficiary's work. 
On appeal, counsel states that the director erroneously found that all of the petitioner'S witnesses 
"are from the _ area," whereas "Petitioner provided references from 
-Page 13 
This claim derives from a selective reading of the director's 
decision. In context, the quoted passage reads: 
This decision has considered all of the evidence of record, including the letters from a 
retired Southwest Region Field Director of the Education 
Association, a school psychologist in the _ 
In context, it is clear that the sentence "All of the references are from the area" refers 
not to all of the petitioner's witnesses, but to a~ecifically listed in the preceding 
sentence. The director's specific mention of~roves that the director did not 
disregard that letter, as counsel claims. 
With respect to the witnesses no 
personal familiarity with the berlefiici21Ty" s field. He 
~~illY stated that his iurisdictiion 'lll<1liK~pf()fe~,si(malls in the beneficiary's specialty. The 
for close to ten years" and therefore has a 
demonstrable link with the petitioning entity' 
Counsel contends that "USCIS abused its discretion by requiring that [the beneficiary] influenced 
her field overall to a greater extent than other mental health counselors." There exists no statute, 
regulation or case law granting a blanket waiver to mental health counselors. Counsel fails to 
explain why the beneficiary should receive the national interest waiver - a special, added 
immigration benefit - in the absence of significant impact and influence that would distinguish her 
from "other mental health counselors." 
Counsel states: "USCIS erred in alleging that Petitioner does not detail accomplishments, precise 
outcomes or end products of the projects in which [the beneficiary] participated." Counsel does not 
elaborate on this argument. Therefore, this assertion remains simply a vague and unsubstantiated 
assertion. 
In a supplemental brief, counsel states: 
[The beneficiary's] exceptional abilities have been developed through her unique 
experience, including her work with [sic] in 
determined pursuit of a rigorous continuing education '~IJL"UI~I" 
training. Moreover, her distinguished record of accomplishments and documented 
track record of professional recognition and achievement conclusively documents that 
she is already serving U.S. national interests to a significantly greater extent than 
other contributors to the Trauma Specialists sub-field of mental health care. 
-Page 14 
[The beneficiary's] eligibility for [the] national interest waiver 
buttressed by her Certified Trauma Specialist status (CTS). 
IS further 
The above passage also appeared in counsel's introductory letter, and therefore it is not a response to 
any legal or procedural error by the director. Counsel, here, does not demonstrate that the 
beneficiary stands out in her field. Rather, counsel simply describes some of the beneficiary'S 
activities and credentials, and declares that they her from others in the field. The 
beneficiary'S claimed (but not documented) work with may reflect favorably on her 
dedication, but it does not inherently make her a superior mental health counselor. The record amply 
demonstrates the beneficiary'S continuing education, but continuing education is a routine 
requirement in many professions. The petitioner has not shown that the beneficiary'S efforts in this 
area are anything beyond what is required to maintain her credentials. The reference to the 
beneficiary'S CTS status continues a persistent pattern in the record, holding out CTS certification as 
a coveted badge of superiority without persuasive evidence to support that contention. 
Counsel states that the beneficiary'S patients and trainees may move to other parts of the country, 
thereb~ broadening ~e of her impact. As ru: example: the pe~it.ion~r submits a 
new witness letter. ~ states that the benefiCiary proVided trammg 'of a much 
higher clinical standard compared to other supervision received," and that he then accepted a 
position "as a Life Skills teacher" at a high school . 
Any claimed national scope from patient or trainee migration would be highly diluted and diffused. 
Furthermore, the "national scope" test would be meaningless if the migration of colleagues or clients 
could satisfy it. Virtually any alien could meet such a standard, making it worthless as a 
distinguishing criterion. Under such a standard, an alien who sells magazines and snacks at an 
airport could be said to have national scope, owing to the almost immediate dispersal of the alien's 
merchandise to distant points. 
Counsel also contends: "Although [the beneficiary's] work is primarily confined to 
her patients come to her from other regions and therefore it serves those to 
have them treated by an expert in the field of mental health counseling." The petitioner has not 
documented any significant inflow of out-of-state patients that would realistically demonstrate 
national scope in a nation of over 300 million people. 
'1";~U"tlt" that the beneficiary "herself is not confined to practice medicine in_ 
At any time when she chooses, [the beneficiary] could move to another part of the 
United States and continue her practice there, assisting other children." Counsel's use of the phrase 
"medical practice" is misleading. The holds a master's in social work and has no 
credentials to "practice medicine" in More substantively, 
if the beneficiary were to relocate, this action would simply move her local influence from one area 
to another; her influence and impact in would cease if she left. 
Page IS 
A section of counsel's brief begins with the underlined heading "Petitioner Persuasively 
Demonstrates That The National Interest Would Be Adversely Affected If A Labor Certification 
Were Required For The Alien." Counsel wrote these words more than a year after the petitioner did, 
in fact, apply for a labor certification on the beneficiary's behalf. On April 10, 2009, nine months 
before the petitioner filed the present petition, seeking a waiver, the petitioner filed ETA Form 9089 
with the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor approved the labor certification on 
February ro, 20ro, three weeks after the present petition's tiling date. 
Using the approved labor certification, the petitioner filed a new Form 1-140 petition on May II, 
20 I O. That petition is currently pending, and processing will resume upon completion of the present 
appeal. (The Texas Service Center has no access to the record, and must suspend adjudication, 
while an appeal or motion is pending at the AAO.) The approved labor certification shows that the 
petitioner has already met the job offer requirement that it sought to waive. Furthermore, the 
approval of that labor certification fatally undermines any claim that the labor certification process is 
an impediment to the beneficiary's ability to immigrate to the United States. 
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 burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.