dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Servi-ces 
Office of Administrativ e Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
DATE: OCT 1 5 2013 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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:/Jwww.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. 
;;;~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
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. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
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. According to 
Part 6 of the Form I-140, the petitioner seeks employment as a "Special Education Teacher." The 
petitioner worked for _ at from November 
2006 -June 2012. Subsequent to filing the Form I-140, the petitioner began working as "a Special 
Educator in Maryland" in August 2012. 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 position sought by the petitioner does not require an 
advanced degree. The director also determined 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 petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on June 29, 2012. In Part 
4 of the Form I-140, the petitioner answered "yes" to whether any petitions had previously been filed 
on her behalf. The record reflects that filed a Form I-140 petition, with an approved labor 
certification, on her behalf on February 3, 2011, to classify her as a professional under section 
203(b )(3)(A)(ii) of the Act. The Texas Service Center approved the petition on September 26, 2011, 
with a priority date of September 8, 2010. 
The director issued a request for evidence on October 30, 2012, instructing the petitioner to submit 
evidence that her "contributions as a special education teacher will impart national-level benefits " 
and that she "has a past record of specific prior achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole}' The petitioner responded by submitting a letter from counsel and additional 
documentation. 
The director denied the petition on February 6, 2013. The director found that the petitioner failed to 
establish that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the 
United States. The director indicated that the petitioner had not. shown that her work as a special 
education teacher will be national in scope. In addition, the director stated that the petitioner had failed 
to demonstrate that her work has "had an impact on the field of teaching in the U.S." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel and copies of documents previously submitted. 
The appellate brief is similar to the letter from counsel submitted in response to the director ' s request 
for evidence. 
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 3 
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. 
The director stated that "it does not appear that the petitioner ' s position requires and advanced 
degree." The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii), however, does not require the petitioner, who 
is seeking exemption from the job offer requirement, to demonstrate that the position sought requires 
a professional holding an advanced degree. Compare 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i) and (ii). 
Accordingly, the director's finding with regard to that issue is withdrawn. As the documentation 
submitted by the petitioner demonstrates that she qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, the remaining issue is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the job 
offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(ii) states, in pertinent part, "[t]o apply for the [national 
interest] exemption the petitioner must submit Form ETA-750B, Statement of Qualifications of 
Alien, in duplicate." The petitioner did not execute this required document for the petition, and 
therefore the petitioner has not properly applied for the national interest waiver. For this reason 
alone, the petitioner has failed to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. 
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). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, P.L. 
101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990) (IMMACT90), published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 
29, 1991), states, in pertinent part: 
The Service 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 
(b)(6)
Page4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
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, 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, a petitioner must establish that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. !d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope. !d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will serve 
the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the 
same minimum qualifications. !d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's subjective assurance that she will, in the future, serve the national interest is not sufficient 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. !d. 
Eligibility for the waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position 
sought. Assertions regarding the overall importance of an alien's area of expertise cannot suffice to 
establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. !d. at 220. Moreover, it cannot suffice to state that 
the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique background." Special or unusual knowledge or 
training does not inherently meet the national interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly­
trained workers are available in the United States is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department 
of Labor. !d. at 221. 
The petitioner has established that her work as a special education teacher 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. 
In a June 28, 2012letter accompanying the petition, counsel stated: 
The petitioner is seeking a national interest waiver, requesting exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, because it is in the national 
interest of the United States. 
* * * 
Petitioner holds 30 Post-Graduate Credits in Education from the m 
Maryland, USA. She received her Master of Arts in Special Education from 
her Bachelor of Science degree in Education from the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
her Masters in Management from the and her 
Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from all in the Philippines. 
Petitioner is PRAXIS II Certified in ·Special Education, and she has obtained Advanced 
Professional Certificates from the State of Maryland, and is also licensed to teach as a 
Professional Teacher in the states of Colorado and Arizona. 
* * * 
Petitioner is a Special Education Self-Contained Teacher in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 at the 
_ from August, 2009 up to the present. She also taught in the 
same public school in Baltimore from November 2006 to June, 2009, in grades 1, 2, and 3. 
Prior to coming to the U.S., she was a Special/General Education/English/Language Arts 
Teacher at elementary & secondary levels, from June 1978 to September 2006. 
Academic records, occupational experience, and licenses and professional certifications are elements 
that can contribute toward a finding of exceptional ability. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (B), 
and (C), respectively. Exceptional ability, in turn, is not self-evident grounds for the waiver. See 
section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. 
In addition, counsel initially stated: 
As a SPED [special education] teacher, Petitioner will serve the national interest by 
providing students with special needs equal access to educational opportunities that will help 
develop their full potential, enable them to become productive members of the community, 
and live rich and meaningful lives. 
While the petitioner's employment as a special education teacher has substantial intrinsic merit, 
there is no evidence establishing that the benefits of her work as an educator would extend beyond 
the classroom such that they will have a national impact. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3, 
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. 
!d. In the present matter, the benefits of the petitioner's impact as a special educator are limited to 
the students at her school and, therefore, not national in scope. In addition, the record lacks specific 
examples of how the petitioner's work as a teacher has influenced the education field on a national 
level. For instance, although counsel stated that the petitioner "has planned a research proposal on 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
'Self-Esteem & Self-Concept as Tied to Academic Motivation & Achievement in Special Education 
Settings,'" there is no documentary evidence of the research project or its influence on the field of 
special education. The unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. 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). 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. NYSDOTat 219, n. 6. 
The petitioner submitted various letters of support frorp administrators, teachers, parents, and her 
church pastor discussing her work as an educator. This decision takes into account all of the letters. 
However, as some of the letters contain similar claims addressed in other letters, a discussion of a 
sampling of these letters follows. 
Assistant Principal, stated: 
I have worked with [the petitioner] at in my capacity as Instructional 
Support Teacher for four years from 2006 to 2009. As a self-contained special education 
teacher handling a multi-grade class, [the petitioner] consistently plans and effectively 
implements a variety of on-going differentiated activities and maintains an appropriately 
organized, print rich and safe classroom environment. ' 
She has a wonderful rapport with people of all ages, especially children. Her ability to 
connect with her students and her talent at teaching simple concepts, as well as more 
advanced topics, are both truly superior. She has excellent written and verbal 
communication skills, is extremely organized, reliable and computer literate. [The petitioner] 
can work independently and is able to follow through to ensure that the job gets done. She 
accomplishes these tasks with great initiative and with a very positive attitude. 
Ms. comments onthe petitioner's effectiveness as a special education teacher at 
but she does not indicate that the petitioner 's work has had, or will continue to 
have, an impact beyond her classroom and the system. 
former principal of , stated: 
[The petitioner] commands respect and is genuinely caring and interested in each of her 
students. As a certified special educator, [the petitioner's] duties include the teaching and 
case management of a self-contained multi grade class of students with special needs, a job 
she does with commitment and perseverance. She is able to do multiple tasks efficiently and 
successfully serving as a member of the school IEP [Individualized Education Program] team 
Committee despite the pressure of deadlines. She is highly innovative, creating templates 
and matrices that she shares with fellow educators to help make case management time-
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
efficient. She is able to work independently but is also a strong collaborator, partnering with 
parents and fellow professionals in order to provide comprehensive student progress reports 
during IEP meetings. 
Records show that she has had extensive training on writing curriculum-based goals, 
understanding and supporting students with autism, educating students with emotional 
disorder and behavioral disabilities. She has consistently shared best practices with 
colleagues as an active and effective participant in a professional learning community. As a 
proficient and reliable special education teacher, [the petitioner] does not hesitate to go the 
extra mile to ensure her students' success. She willingly stays after school hours on 
weekdays to provide tutorials to struggling students. In the school year 2008-2009, test 
scores of special education students in her class increased, attributed to her hard work. 
Ms. describes the petitioner's work as special educator and praises the petitioner's 
dedication and effectiveness as a teacher, but does not indicate how the etitioner's impact or 
influence as a teacher is national in scope. In addition, although Ms. indicates that the 
petitioner shares educational tools and best practices with her colleagues, she fails to provide 
specific examples of how the petitioner 's work has influenced the field as a whole. 
Teacher, stated: 
I have known [the petitioner] since 2006. We worked on [sic] the same school, 
Maryland from 2006 through 2010. She 
has been an excellent asset to our school. 
[The petitioner] has been teaching a self-contained special education class of students with 
different disabilities ranging from autism, intellectually disabled, emotionally-disturbed and 
learning disabled at 
[The petitioner's] professionalism is demonstrated through her innovative and creative 
instruction aligned with the curriculum state standards and common core instructional 
framework and rubric. Her expertise is not limited to self-contained classrooms, but also to 
students who are mainstreamed in the general education classrooms. 
Being an innovative and creative teacher, [the petitioner] prepares lessons fashioned to the 
needs and learning styles of each of her students. She uses a variety of instructional 
techniques to connect and actualize learning for her students. She differentiates instruction 
and activities depending upon the readiness of her students. She further uses technology to 
improve instruction and use academic games to make sure students engage in the lesson and 
enjoy learning at the same time. 
[The petitioner] has genuine love and passion for teaching that motivates and encourages her 
students to improve their skills and hone their potentials. She works hard to make the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
atmosphere in her classes friendly and engaging. She has excellent rapport with students, 
parents and staff. 
Ms. comments on the petitioner's work at and the petitioner's 
expertise as a teacher, but Ms. 's observations do not set the petitioner apart from other 
competent and qualified special educators, or explain how the petitioner's work has impacted the 
field beyond the students under her tutelage. 
The petitioner's references praise her teaching abilities and personal character, but they do not 
demonstrate that the petitioner's work has had an impact or influence outside of the schools where 
she has taught. They also do not address the NYSDOT guidelines which, as published precedent, are 
binding on all USCIS employees. See 8 C.P.R.§ 103.3(c). That decision cited school teachers as an 
example of a profession in a field with overall national importance (education), but in which 
individual workers generally do not produce benefits that are national in scope. NYSDOT at 217, n. 
3. 
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). 
The opinions of the petitioner's references are not without weight and have been considered above. 
users 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 of support from the petitioner's personal contacts is 
not presumptive evidence of eligibility; users may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796; 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"). 
In addition to reference letters, the petitioner submitted the following: 
1. A Maryland Educator Certificate; 
2. A State of Colorado Professional Teacher license; 
3. Praxis series test results; 
4. Degrees and academic transcripts; 
5. A President's Award for Educational Excellence "in recognition of Outstanding 
Academic Excellence" issued by the principal at 
6. A Certificate of Outstanding Performance "as an educator of 
Schools" from ' '; 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
7. A Hall of Fame Award from ' for "having been 
Proficient in the annual teacher's evaluation for three consecutive years (2008- 2011) in 
8. A Certificate of Appreciation from ' in recognition of "5 
Years of Dedicated Service" to 
9. A Certificate of Membership for the National Association of Special Education Teachers; 
10. A Certificate of Recognition indicating that the petitioner is a "Founder and Active 
Member of 
11. A certificate indicating that the petitioner is a member of the 
of the American Federation of Teachers; and 
12. A Certificate of Appreciation from the system for "participation in the 
Academic records, licenses and professional certifications, professional association memberships, 
and recognition for achievements are all elements that pertain to a finding of exceptional ability, but 
exceptional ability is not sufficient to warrant the national interest waiver. The plain language of 
section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act indicates that aliens of exceptional ability are subject to the job offer 
requirement (including alien employment certification). Particularly significant awards may serve as 
evidence of the petitioner's impact and influence on her field, but the petitioner has failed to 
demonstrate that the awards she received (items 5 - 8, 10, and 12) have more than regional, local, or 
institutional significance. For instance, the petitioner's certificates from ' _ 
reflect regional recognition from a professional support group rather than nationally 
significant awards in the field of education. There is no documentary evidence showing that items 1 
- 12 are indicative of the petitioner's influence on the field of education at the national level. 
The petitioner submitted certificates of participation for training seminars and workshops relating to 
her professional development. While taking courses and attending seminars and workshops are 
ways to increase one's professional knowledge and to improve as a teacher, there is nothing inherent 
in these activities to establish eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
The petitioner submitted documentation indicating that she participated on a panel entitled "Tough 
Choices: The impact of Philippines and U.S. policies on the lives of Overseas Filipina Professionals 
in America" at the Fifth Annual Filipina Summit (2007) in Washington, D.C., but the subject of the 
panel was not special education. There is no evidence demonstrating that the petitioner's specific 
contribution to the panel has influenced the field as whole or has otherwise had a national impact on 
special education methodologies. 
In response to the director's request for evidence, the petitioner submitted a personal statement 
discussing her position as a special educator, educational background, qualifications, and 
professional experience. Any objective qualifications which are necessary for the performance of the 
occupation can be articulated in an application for alien labor certification. NYSDOT at 220-221. As 
previously discussed, special or unusual knowledge or training does not inherently meet the national 
interest threshold. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
is an issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. !d. at 221. The petitioner 's personal 
statement also listed various awards that she has received, but there is no documentary evidence 
showing that the awards are indicative of her influence on the field of special education as a whole. 
The petitioner's response also included a December 2012 "Research Proposal" by her entitled' 
' The petitioner authored the proposal subsequent to the petition's June 
29, 2012 filing date. Eligibility, however, must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Cornm'r 1971). Accordingly, 
the December 2012 research proposal cannot be considered as evidence to establish the petitioner's 
eligibility. Regardless, there is no evidence indicating the petitioner's study resulted in findings that 
were implemented by a substantial number of schools nationally, that were frequently cited by 
independent educational scholars, or that otherwise influenced the field as a whole. 
On appeal, counsel points to the petitioner's 25 years of experience as a special education teacher, 
educational qualifications, and awards, but none of the submitted documentation shows that the 
petitioner's work has had a wider impact on the field of special education. There is no documentary 
evidence demonstrating that the petitioner 's educational achievements are national in scope and 
indicative of her influence on the field as a whole. 
Counsel asserts that "a major factor" in consideration of granting a national interest waiver for the 
petitioner is "the improvement of education and programs for U.S. children." However, general 
arguments or 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. These assertions address 
only the "substantial intrinsic merit" prong of NYSDOT s national interest test. There is no 
documentation demonstrating that the petitioner's work has had an impact or influence outside of the 
schools where she has taught. In addition, counsel fails to explain how the actions of one special 
education teacher would contribute significantly to improving the national educational system. 
Congress could have created a blanket waiver for special educators, but did not do so. Instead, the 
job offer requirement applies to members of the professions (such as public school teachers) arid to 
aliens of exceptional ability (i.e., foreign national workers who show a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in a given field). Counsel identifies no statutory or 
regulatory provisions that exempt special education teachers from NYSDOT or reduce its impact on 
them. USCIS grants national interest waivers on a case-by-case basis, rather than establishing blanket 
waivers for entire fields of specialization. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217. 
Counsell')oints to the petitioner's December 2012 "Research Proposal" entitled 
' Counsel asserts that the "study is not 
only limited to Maryland but can become 
national in scope." As previously discussed, the petitioner authored the proposal subsequent to the 
petition's filing date. Eligibility, however, must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. 
§§ 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Regardless, there is no documentary 
(b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
evidence showing that the petitioner's study has been undertaken in Maryland or that it has secured 
the necessary authorizations and funding to be implemented nationally. 
Counsel states: 
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational 
Outlook handbook, 2012-2013 Edition, Employment of special education teachers is 
expected to grow by 17% from 2010 to 2020, about as fast as the average for all occupation 
[sic]. Growth is expected because of increasing enrollment and continued demand for special 
education services. Laws emphasizing training and employment for people with disabilities 
are expected to lead to some job growth for special education teachers, as are new higher 
standards for high school graduation. More parents are expected to seek special services for 
children who have difficulty meeting the higher standards required of students. 
Counsel's preceding comments focus on the increased demand for special education teachers. As the 
employment certification process was designed to address the issue of worker shortages, a shortage of 
qualified workers in a given field is does not establish eligibility for the national interest waiver. The 
issue of whether similarly -trained workers are available in the U.S. is an issue under the jurisdiction 
of the Department of Labor. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. 
Counsel asserts: "Another evidentiary factor that should be considered in the adjudication of a 
national interest waiver is improving the U.S. economy and improving wages and working 
conditions for U.S. workers." This assertion does not address how the actions of one special 
education teacher would contribute significantly to the U.S. economy and to better wages and 
working conditions for the U.S. workforce. Moreover, general assertions about the overall importance 
of education, and the need for special education programs, do not exempt every special education 
teacher from the job offer requirement. As members of the professions (as defined in section 101(a)(32) 
of the Act), teachers are subject to the job offer/labor certification requirement set forth in sections 
203(b )(2)(A) and (3)(C) of the Act. Likewise, aliens of exceptional ability who "will substantially 
benefit prospectively ... the United States" are also subject to the job offer provision of section 
203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. Again, Congress did not create a blanket waiver for special education teachers. 
As indicated by the statute, an individual who works in a beneficial profession such as special education 
is not automatically or presumptively exempt from the job offer requirement. 
Counsel further states: 
The role that the Petitioner/beneficiary will perform is definitely superlative in degree than 
any U.S. worker, who would have the same minimum qualifications that he [sic] has. Ms. 
Lumapas [sic] is attuned to this great country's commitment of ensuring equality of 
opportunity, full participation, independent living, and self sufficient for individuals with 
disabilities .... 
Counsel asserts above that the petitioner's role is "superlative in degree than any U.S. worker," but 
there is no documentary evidence to support his claim. Again, the unsupported assertions of counsel 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. at 534 n.2; Matter of Laureano, 19 
I&N Dec. at 3 n.2; Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506. In addition, counsel appears to 
incorrectly refer to the petitioner as "Ms. Lumapas." 
Counsel continues: 
Furthermore under the third (3) threshold criteria i.e. the national interest would be adversely 
affected if a labor certification were required .... A lot of the proposed benefits from the 
Petitioner/Applicant's work are dependent on her proven record of achievement and her 
unique and innovative set of skills, knowledge and background. 
Counsel states above that the petitioner has a "proven record of achievement," but there is no 
documentary evidence showing the petitioner's specific work has influenced the field of special 
education at a level that would justify a waiver of the job offer requirement. Counsel also comments 
on the petitioner's "unique and innovative set of skills, knowledge and background," but as 
previously indicated, it cannot suffice to state that the alien possesses useful skills, or a "unique 
background." NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 221. Special or unusual knowledge or training does not 
inherently meet the national interest threshold. 
Lastly, counsel asserts: 
Because a labor certification process is standardized, one that only related to mmtmum 
requirements of education and experience, such a process will not take into account these 
crucial factors. In other words, many of the essential qualities that [the petitioner] has, which 
are so important to serving the national interest will not be articulated in a labor certification 
process. 
Moreover, failure to consider these factors could result in a denial of a labor certification, 
because a U.S worker with mm1mum qualifications might be found. Since 
Petitioner/applicant will serve the nation to a substantially greater degree than anyone with 
minimum qualifications, her non participation on her current work would deprive the nation 
of her exceptional and crucial contribution to the national interest. . . . Therefore, requiring a 
labor certification would adversely affect the national interest. 
The U.S. Department of Labor, however, has already approved a labor certification for on 
behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the record does not support counsel's assertions. 
A plain reading of the statute indicates that engaging in a profession (such as teaching) does not 
presumptively exempt such professionals from the requirement of a job offer based on national interest. 
The petitioner has not established that her past record of achievement is at a level that would justify 
a waiver of the job offer requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa classification 
sought by the petitioner. 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. !d. at 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 13 
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"). 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 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.