dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Psychology

(b)(6)
DATE : JUL 0 8 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
FILE#: 
PETITION RECEIPT #: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office 
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: 
NO REPRESENTATIVE OF RECORD 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed is the non-precedent decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) for your case. 
If you believe we incorrectly decided your case, you may file a motion requesting us to reconsider our 
decision and/or reopen the proceeding. The requirements for motions are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
Motions must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this 
decision. The Form I-290B web page (www.uscis.gov/i-290b) contains the latest information on fee, filing 
location, and other requirements. Please do not mail any motions directly to the AAO . 
Thank you, 
J.~'::~trative Appeals Office 
REV 3/2015 www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the 
matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. We 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 school psychologist for the 
). The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a 
· labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the 
petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 
that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be 
in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability.-
(A) In General. -Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The record reflects that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. 1 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. 
1 The petitioner earned a Master's degree in Developmental Psychology from in 2004 . 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
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." In reNew York State Dept 
a/Transportation , 22 l&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01), set forth several 
factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, a 
petitioner must establish that she seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. 
Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will b~ national in scope. !d. Finally, the 
petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that she will serve the national interest to a substantially 
greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. Id. at 
217-18. 
The petitioner has established that her work as a school psychologist is in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit. It remains, then, to determine whether the proposed benefits of the petitioner's work 
will be national in scope and whether she will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an 
available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. 
Although the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must 
establish her past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. Id. at 219. The 
petitioner's subjective assurance that she will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used here to require 
future contributions by the petitioner, rather than to facilitate the entry of an individual with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. ld. 
Furthermore, eligibility for the waiver must rest with the petitioner 's own qualifications rather than 
with the position sought. Assertions regarding the overall importance of a petitioner's area of 
expertise cannot suffice to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. ld. at 220. At issue is 
whether this petitioner's contributions in 
the field are of such significance that she merits the special 
benefit of a national interest waiver, a benefit separate and distinct from the visa classification she 
seeks. A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence 
on the field as a whole. !d. at 219, n. 6. In evaluating the petitioner's achievements, original 
innovation, such as demonstrated by a patent, is insufficient by itself. Whether the specific 
innovation serves the national interest must be decided on a case-by-case basis. ld. at 221, n. 7. 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. National in Scope 
The petitioner filed the Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Form 1-140) on June 26,2013. In a letter 
accompanying the Form I-140 petition, the petitioner stated: "I am a school psychologist involved in 
the federally mandated process of identifying school-aged children with special needs." While helping 
a municipality comply with the federally mandated process of identifying students with special 
needs shows that the petitioner 's work meets the "substantial intrinsic merit" prong of NYSDOTs 
national interest analysis, it is not sufficient to demonstrate the proposed benefits of her employment 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~ION 
Page 4 
as a school psychologist for will be national in scope. NYSDOT provides examples of 
employment where the benefits would not be national in scope: 
For instance, pro bono legal services as a whole serve the national interest, but the impact of 
an individual attorney working pro bono would be so attenuated at the national level as to be 
negligible. Similarly, while education is in the national interest, the impact of a single 
schoolteacher in one elementary school would not be in the national interest for purposes of 
waiving the job offer requirement of section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act. As another example, 
while nutrition has obvious intrinsic value, the work of one cook in one restaurant could not 
be considered sufficiently in the national interest for purposes of this provision of the Act. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec.at 217, n.3. With regard to the petitioner's employment with , she has 
not shown that the benefits of her work as school psychologist extend beyond the students receiving 
her services. As the petitioner did not establish that her work identifying students with special 
needs was national in scope, the director determined that the proposed benefits of her employment did 
not satisfy the second prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis. 
On appeal, the petitioner challenges the director's determination regarding the national scope of her 
work. The petitioner asserts that she has "provided workshops and trainings inside as well as 
outside" of The petitioner previously submitted documentation reflecting that she 
volunteered to serve as a practicum supervisor for psychology students from 
her alma mater. The petitioner does not explain how supervising practical training for 
students at is national in scope. Rather, the benefits of her 
supervision are limited to the trainees that she was assigned. In addition, the petitioner previously 
submitted evidence of her participation in the 
The 
petitioner and founder of 
provided two workshops on the topics of bullying and effective collaboration 
among educational and mental health professionals. The petitioner, however, has not indicated that 
she will be employed as a psychology consultant providing such workshops for families and 
professionals at various locations throughout the United States. Rather, the evidence of record and Part 
6 of the Form I-140 petition indicate that the petitioner seeks employment as a school psychologist, 
specifically for .Z Accordingly, the petitioner has not established that the proposed benefits of 
her employment will be national in scope. 
B. Serving the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available 
U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications 
2 Even if the petitioner had proposed to work as a psychology consultant providing professional workshops 
throughout the United States, which she has not, there is no evidence demonstrating that her influence on the 
field satisfies the third prong of the NYSDOTnational interest analysis. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The remaining issue is whether the petitioner's influence on the field satisfies the third prong of the 
NYSDOT national interest analysis. In addition to her academic records, professional credentials, 
performance evaluations, and awards, the petitioner submitted various reference letters discussing 
her qualifications and activities in the field. 
, School Psychology Consultant, 
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, states: 
[The petitioner] is proficient in ASL [American Sign Language] and is able to provide 
intensive psychoeducational evaluations for deaf and hard of hearing children. The 
qualifications that [the petitioner] possesses as a highly qualified and competent school 
psychologist are rare, if not nonexistent. 
Ms. mentions the petitioner's proficiency in ASL and her ability to provide intensive 
psychoeducational evaluations for the hearing impaired, but does not explain how the petitioner's 
work has had an impact beyond the students who she evaluates. In addition, while Ms. asserts 
that the petitioner "is considered one of the top experts in the field," there is no documentary 
evidence showing that the petitioner's work as a school psychologist has affected the field as a 
whole. Ms. further states that the petitioner's qualifications are rare, and that few school 
psychologists are nationally certified and capable of serving hearing impaired students. The U.S. 
Department of Labor addresses assertions of worker shortages through the labor certification 
process, and therefore an asserted shortage alone is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the 
national interest waiver. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. 
Dr. 
states: 
-------- , Director of the School Psychology Program, 
[The petitioner] was selected as a recipient of the 
_ : Department of Psychology. . . . The 
is awarded to an advanced graduate candidate in School 
Psychology who has demonstrated commitment, enthusiasm, and skill for the provision of 
school psychological services for deaf and hard of hearing children in schools and whose 
future work holds the potential for significant contributions in the field. The faculty was 
confident that [the petitioner] would be a benefit to the field of school psychology through 
her work with children and their families, and her work and commitment since graduating 
from the program in 2006 has been evidence of this. 
Dr. states that the petitioner was selected as a recipient of the 
in Department of Psychology. This 
institutional award for students with "potential" concerns the petitioner's graduate studies at 
and does not establish a wider influence in the field of school psychology. For 
example, there is no documentary evidence showing that psychology protocols for students in school 
systems throughout the country have changed in response to the petitioner's work. We note that 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
recognition for one's achievements can provide partial support for a claim of exceptional ability 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), but exceptional ability does not establish eligibility for the 
waiver, as aliens of exceptional ability remain subject to the job offer requirement at section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Similarly, recognition of one's achievements as an advanced degree 
professional does not, without evidence of influence on the field as a whole, establish eligibility for 
the waiver. 
Dr. , Psychology Program Manager, Office of Special Education, states: 
With her sub-specializations in deafness and school neuropsychology, [the petitioner] is 
qualified to work with children with hearing loss and to conduct a school-based 
neuropsychological evaluation. These are rare attributes and highly valued achievements. 
[the petitioner] is an indispensable employee. Without a school psychologist like [the 
petitioner], the district would be adversely affected. 
To recognize her unique skills set and extraordinary work, our Psychology Program chose 
her to be the recipient of the -
for "outstanding commitment to promoting the possibilities in students' lives by nurturing 
their strengths and skills, providing caring relationships, celebrating their individuality, 
supporting their mental wellness and academic competence, and helping them achieve their 
best in school, at home, and in life." 
Dr. mentions the petitioner's sub-specializations in deafness and school neuropsychology 
and her "unique skills set," but does not provide specific examples of how the petitioner's work has 
influenced the field as a whole. Special or unusual knowledge or training, while perhaps attractive to 
the prospective U.S. employer, does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. NYSDOT, 22 
I&N Dec. at 221. In addition, Dr. states that the chose the 
petitioner as "recipient of the m 
" This award from 
'' for the petitioner's support of students within reflects internal recognition and 
does not establish a wider impact in the field of school psychology. There is no documentary 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's work has affected school psychology practices 
nationally or has otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
School Psychologist, states: 
With her sub-specializations in deafness and school neuropsychology, [the petitioner] is 
assigned to high profile and rather complicated cases. . 
. . Without a school psychologist like 
[the petitioner], the district as well as our students will suffer a tremendous deficit, as we are 
required by law to provide appropriate assessments to children with a suspected or identified 
disability. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDEC~JON 
Page 7 
Ms. comments on the petitioner's sub-specializations in deafness and school 
neuropsychology, and her ability to perform appropriate assessments of students with disabilities in 
, but any objective qualifications which are necessary for the performance ofthe occupation can 
be articulated in an application for labor certification. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 220-21. In addition, 
there is no documentary evidence showing the impact of the petitioner's casework beyond her 
assigned students. Thus, the petitioner has not shown that her work for . is indicative of 
influence on the field as a whole. 
, Occupational Therapist, describes the petitioner's preparation of 
psychological evaluations within including researching best practices, investigating the 
student's particular situation, and writing a final report that is both comprehensive and 
understandable. Ms. however, does not provide specific examples of how the 
petitioner's work as school psychologist for has affected the field as a whole. 
, an attorney with the states that she met the 
petitioner at an Individual Education Plan (IEP) meeting involving a client and representatives of 
Ms. asserts that the petitioner was "extremely knowledgeable" and that her findings 
and recommendations were trustworthy and served the needs of the client. While Ms. 
expresses admiration for petitioner's interpersonal skills, knowledge, and effectiveness as a school 
psychologist, she does not explain how the petitioner's work for has impacted the field as a 
whole. 
asserts that the petitioner "has the level of expertise and competence needed to 
contribute, nationally, to addressing the needs" of those who are hearing impaired, but does not 
provide any examples of how the petitioner's work has already influenced the school psychology 
field. Mr. further states that "it is only a matter of time before [the petitioner] will also 
contribute to the knowledge base by writing articles for national research journals and other 
publications." Speculation about possible future impact of the petitioner's work does not establish 
that she had already influenced the field at the time of filing. Eligibility must be established at the 
time offiling. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'l Comm 'r 
1971). In addition, Mr. mentions that the petitioner is capable of training "educators and 
pupil services providers, 
administrators, and other school personnel," but does not explain how the 
petitioner's work has had an impact beyond her trainees or has otherwise influenced the field as a 
whole. 
Furthermore, Mr. asserts that the petitioner "can give high quality presentations at local, 
regional, state, and national conferences to share her expertise with others." With regard to the 
petitioner's participation in the 
we note that many 
professional fields regularly hold conferences to present new work, discuss new findings, and to 
network with other professionals. Professional associations, educational institutions, healthcare 
organizations, employers, and government agencies promote and sponsor these conferences. 
Although presentation of the petitioner's work demonstrates that she shared information with others, 
there is no documentary evidence showing, for instance, frequent independent citation of her work, 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
or that her fmdings have otherwise affected the school psychology field at a level sufficient to waive 
the job offer requirement. 
Dr. Director of Psychological Services, 
Pennsylvania, states that his school "district had a need for a school psychologist with very unique 
training and language skills" to perform a student evaluation and that he conducted "a national 
search and that search revealed [the petitioner]." Dr. further states: 
Not only was [the petitioner] fluent in Japanese, but she also understood the culture and the 
unique language and learning needs of our student. [The petitioner] possessed the 
qualifications and clinical skills that very few individuals possess in the United States. 
Furthermore, she was able to connect with the student and the parents in a way that none of 
our staff could. . . . Her findings were detailed and her recommendations were thorough and 
easy to follow. 
Dr. mentions the petitioner's "unique training and language skills," her fluency in 
Japanese, professional qualifications, and clinical skills. Any assertion that the petitioner possesses 
useful skills, or a "unique background" relates to whether similarly-trained workers are available in 
the United States and is an issue under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor through the 
labor certification process. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. In addition, Mr. comments on 
the petitioner 's effectiveness as a school psychologist, but does not provide specific examples of 
how the petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole. 
The petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications) . In addition, uncorroborated assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 
F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to 
uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); Matter of Caron Int '/, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. at 
795 (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions statements . . . 
submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making the final 
determination regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not required to accept or 
may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionable"). The submission of reference 
letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility ; USCIS may evaluate the 
content of those letters as to whether they support the beneficiary's eligibility. !d. See also Matter 
of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert opinion testimony does not purport to 
be evidence as to "fact") . As the submitted reference letters did not provide examples indicating that 
the petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole, they do not demonstrate her eligibility for 
the national interest waiver. 
In addition, the petitioner submitted a copy of her Master's degree certificate in Developmental 
Psychology, Specialist Degree in School Psychology, National Certificate in School Psychology 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
from the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), and certification from the American 
Board of School Neuropsychology (ABSNP). With regard to the petitioner's certifications from the 
NASP and the ABSNP, the petitioner and her references state that her credentials are nationally 
recognized, but national recognition of one's credentials alone does not indicate that the petitioner's 
endeavor is national in scope or that her work has influenced the field as a whole. 
The aforementioned educational degrees and professional certifications are elements that can 
contribute toward a finding of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (C), 
respectively. However, in this instance the petitioner is seeking a waiver of the job offer as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. We note 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. Pursuant to section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. NYSDOT , 22 I&N Dec. at 218, 222. 
Therefore, whether a given individual seeks classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that individual cannot qualify for a waiver 
just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in her 
field of expertise. The national interest waiver is an additional benefit, separate from the 
classification sought, and therefore eligibility for the underlying classification does not demonstrate 
eligibility for the additional benefit of the waiver. Without evidence demonstrating that the 
petitioner's work has affected the field as a whole, employment in a beneficial occupation such as a 
school psychologist, therefore, does not by itself qualify the petitioner for the national interest 
watver. 
The petitioner also submitted information concerning the economic benefits of higher education, 
disability categories, special education inclusion in the State of Maryland, the No Child Left Behind 
Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, school psychology guidelines, the necessity of 
comprehensive assessments for students with disabilities, the importance of recruiting culturally and 
linguistically diverse school psychologists, the National Deaf Education Project, the National 
Association of the Deafs (NAD) "Position Statement on Inclusion," the NASP's position on serving 
the hearing impaired, the challenges facing school psychologists, and the prevalence and incidence of 
hearing loss in children. The submitted information demonstrates that the petitioner works m a 
meritorious occupation, but does not demonstrate her work has influenced the field as a whole. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the director's decision did not mention the NAD's "Position 
Statement on Inclusion," which states that, among other things, the learning environment should be 
"staffed by certified and qualified personnel trained to work with deaf and hard of hearing children." 
General information regarding the importance of a given field of endeavor, or the urgency of an 
issue facing the United States, cannot by themselves establish that an individual benefits the national 
interest by virtue of engaging in the field. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217. Such information 
addresses only the "substantial intrinsic merit" prong of NYSDOT's national interest test. We do not 
dispute the importance of having culturally diverse school psychologists trained in American Sign 
Language in our nation's schools. At issue in this matter, however, is whether the petitioner's 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
individual contributions in the field are of such significance that she merits the special benefit of a 
national interest waiver. 
Finally, the petitioner submitted coptes of her performance evaluations from reflecting 
"Effective" ratings and from _ reflecting that she "Meets 
Standards." The petitioner, however, does not indicate how the submitted evaluations demonstrate 
that she has influenced the field to a substantially greater degree than other similary qualified school 
psychologists and how 
her specific work has had significant impact outside of the school districts that 
employed her. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the 
benefits of the petitioner's work are national in scope, that she has influenced the field as a whole, or 
that she will otherwise serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an 
available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced degree 
professional or alien of exceptional ability should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based 
on national interest. The petitioner has not shown that her past record of achievement is at a level 
sufficient to waive the job offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa 
classification sought by the petitioner. Although the petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the 
scale of national acclaim, the petitioner must have "a past history of demonstrable achievement with 
some degree of influence on the field as a whole." NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. 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. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.