dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

(b)(6)
DATE: DEC 0 5 2013 OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
~ashington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services · 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § U53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
EnClosed please find· the decision of the Administra:tive Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non~prece(ient decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believ~ the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your c::J,se 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://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
/ 
Thank you, 
Ron Rosen 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page~ 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is nQw before the AAO on appeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. · 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b)(2) ofthe I:rnmigtation 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 an elementary special education teacher in Baltimore, Maryland. At the 
time she filed the petition, the petitioner taught kindergarten ·at in 
Rosedale, Maryland. The petitioner asserts that an exemption ftom 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 establishecj th<~,t an. exemption from the requirement of ajob offer would be in 
the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief from counsel. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
ExceptionaJ Ability. -
(A) In General. - Vis(ls sball be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professionS holding advanced degrees or their eqt1ivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will s.ubstantiall y 
benefit prospectively tbe national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of tbe United States, and whose ser\Tices in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver ofJob 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, Of bUsiness be sought by an empioyer . 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner q11alifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whetqer 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 hag "focuseo on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
econoinica:lly and otherwise .. .. " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., lst Sess., l1 (1989). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DEc;ISION 
Page 3 
Suppleme.ntary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, P.L. 101-649, 
l04 Stat 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), published at 56 Fed.. Reg. 60897, 60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
Cl.ppmpriate to leave the application of this test a.s 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 ofaliens seeking to qualify as ''exception(lL"] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from., or waiver of, the job offer will be ip the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
In re N£:W York State Dep 't of transportation, Z2 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors which must be considered when eva_lu(lting a request for · a 
national interest W(liver. First, a petitioner must establish that tbe alirm seeks employment in an area of 
substantial ilitri.nsic 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 minimUI1J qtJ.alifications. /d. at 217-18. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's p£!.St record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. /d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assurance that the alien will, in the futtJ.re, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The term "prospective" is included here to requ.ire future 
contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
actJ_ievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. ld 
The' USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" {\S . "a degree of 
expertise signjficantly above that ordinarily encountered;' in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
a:liens 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 exc::eptional ability, or as a member of the professions holoivg ail 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrati _ng a degree of expertise 
signific(lntly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise, · 
The petitioner filed the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on June 26, 2012. In an 
introductory statement, counsel stated that the petitioner's "petition for waiver of the labor 
certification is premised on her Master of Arts in Education and more tban forty-one (41) years of 
inspired, innovative, and progressive teaching experience in both the United States and the 
Philippines." Academic degrees and experience can provide partial support for a claim of 
exceptional ability under the USCIS regulations ~t 8 C.F.R . .§§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), 
respectively, but exceptional ability does not establish eligibility for the waiver. 
Counsel stated: 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
, In tbe Philippines, [the petitioner] became a1_1 integral member of the Philippine 
Department of Education as a general ed,ucator. Her acclaimed expertise led the 
Department to seek her skills in developing a lesson plan in middle school social 
studies, which was implemented throughout her regional school district. 
Additionally, [the petitioner's] superb leadership a,s principal and head teacher helped 
propel het school as one of the leading early educating institutions in its area; the 
growth see'n by the school under rthe petitionerl, both physically and in the 
cmnpetency of its faculty, led to being commended by the~ 
Department of Education, Philippines as a model institution. 
In the U.S., [the petitioner] has continued to develop her well-horied methodologies. in 
both special and general education; her .innovative intervention strategies a,t 
as a specia1 educator resulted in a 90% 
increa,se ill student 
achievement. 
Counsel cited no evidence to support the above claim regarding improvements in student 
acbievem~nt at _ . . , The unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigb,ena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n,2 (BIA 
1988); Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matte; of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N 
Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980} Furthermore, improvement at a single school would not demonstrate that 
the benefit from the petitioner's work has been or will be national in scope. 
The petitioner detailed her teaching experience since 1970 in a 24-page statement, stating that she 
instituted various progra_ms, said to be still in use, to improve literacy, combat truancy, and 
otherWise improve and reform ·the schools where _she taught. In the statement, the petitioner 
asserted: "In 2003, The dream of coming to America was once revived when American people 
recruited Filipino teacbers to fill the shortage of teachers especially in Special Education. teachers 
especially in Baltimore, Maryland [sic]." 
The petitioner submitted a, printout of an article froro tbe News web site (affiliated with a 
television network in t_he Philippines). The article, ":Baltimore schoolteachers faring well despite 
crisis," featured c_omthertts from several Filipino teachers working in Baltimore, including the 
petitioner. The article began: 
The economic crisis may be ravaging most of America, but Filipino teachers 
here have apparently made their jobs "recession-proof' by burnishing their 
credentials and endearing themselves to students and school officials alike. 
About a thou_sand Filipino teachers ~ave been hired by the Baltimore public 
-school system since 2003, the increments growing every year: Many of them 
filled a void in special , education (SpEd) and certain subjects like Math, 
Science, and interestingly, English. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
The article did not focus on the petitioner, or provide any information about her except to ic:len_tjfy 
l;ler as "a SpEd teacher at the " Tbe ~rticle c:lid not 
indicate what impact the petitioner or her colleagues have had on the quality of education in 
13altimore. 
The petitioner submitted copies of various certificates she received from . local and regional 
educational ~utborities in the Philippines, recognizing her work in capacities such as a ''Science 
Trainor" and a "PROBE implementor," and indicating that her students had performed well on 
various examinations. · 
A March 3, 1997 "certification" from of the Philippine Department of 
Education, Culture, and Sports, Region VII, Division of Cebu, stated: 
This is to certify that [the petitioner] was one of the Lesson Guide Writers in Social 
Studies for Grade VI and that she was able to develop/evolve 31 Les~on Gt,1ides, This 
is to certify further tbat tl1ese guides were tried out in pilot schools in the districts . of 
schools in Region VII. 
, and upon final editing these will be used in the 
The petitioner submitted no comparable documentation from educational authorities in the United 
States. The materials do not establish use of her wor~ beyond the regioiJall~vel in the Philippines or 
the local level in the United States. 
Copies of the petitioner's performance review reports from show rat_ings of"satisfactory" 
and "proficient." principal of stated that the petitioner "h~d an 
ov¢rall rating of Satisfactory" during her six years at the school from 2005 to 201 L The petitioner 
did hot explain how these evaluations set her apart from other teachers to an extent that would justify 
a waiver of the job offer requirement that, by law, normally applies to the immigrant classification 
tbat she bas chosen to seek. 
Letters from teachers and administrators at and as well as 
the petitioner's former 
students (mostly in the Philippines), show that these witnesses consider the 
·petitioner to be a dedicated and coQscientious teacher. The letters, however, do not establish that the 
petitioner meets the requirements outlined in NYSDOT. 
the director issued a request for evidence on: November 7, 2012. The director instructed the 
petitioner to submit evidence of broader impact aiJc:l influence. The director stated that, if the 
petitioner chose to submit evidence regarding awards, the petitioner must submit information about 
those awards in order to establish their 
significance. 
In response, the petitioner submitted general background information and assertions from · counsel. 
Counsel cited NYSDOT: "Neither the statute nor Service regulations ddine the term 'n<ttiona.l 
interest.' Additionally, Congress did not provide a specific definition of 'in the national interest."' 
(b)(6)
' . 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
!d. at 216. Counsel claimed ''[t]he obscurity in the law that NYSDOT sought to address has been 
. clarified": 
[T]he United States Congress has spelled out the national interest with respect to 
public elementary and secondary school education through the No Child Left Behind 
Act of2001 ("NCLB Ace), 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq., which came into effectupon its 
enactment in 2001 ~ that is, more than a decade after IMMACT 90 and MTINA were 
eml.cted and three years after NYSDOT was designated as a precedent decision .... 
·, ,, 
Accordingly, the NCLB Act and the Obama Education Programs,. taken collectively, 
. provide the underlying' context for the adjudication of a national interest waiver 
(lpplication made 'in conjunction with an E21 visa petition for employment as a 
Highly Qualified Teach~r in the public school special education sector. 
. .. In effect, therefore, the United States.Congress, with the enactment of the NCLB 
Act, has preempted the USCIS with respect to the parameters that should guide its 
- determination whether a waiver of the job offer requirement based on national 
education interests is warranted. 
The NCLB Act, however, did not amend the Immigration and Nationality Act ot mention the 
national interest waiver. The statute contains several references to ''immigrant children and youth'' 
(e.g., section 301 of the NCLB Act bears the title"Langu,age Instruction for Limiteci English Proficient 
Children: and Immigrant Children and Youth"), but no references to immigrant teachers, The NCLB 
Act does not refer to section 203(b)(2) of the Act, and the phfase "national interest" does not appear 
in its text. In contrast, sectiqn 5 of the Nursing Relief for Pisadvant(lged Areas Act of 1999; Pub.L. 
1Q6 ... 95, 113 Stat. 1312 (1999), specifically amended the Immigration and Nationality Act by adding 
section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii) to that Act, to create spedal waiver provisions for certain physicians. Thus, 
Congress IJ.Ot only can amend the Act to cl(lrify the waiver provisions, but has in fact done so in 
dire_ct response to NYSDOT. Absent a comparable provision in ,the NCLB Act or otMr edu,cation~ 
related legislation, the petitioner has not established that the legi~lation indirectly implied a blanket 
waiver fo~ teachers. 
Counsel claimed that the NCLB Act gives the petitioner's work national _scqpe bec(luse the 
legislation aimed to effect national-level changes in the quality of public education. This (lssertion 
concerns the national scope of public education as a whole, and of the NCLB Act as a statute, but it 
does not follow that every worker affected by the statute produces national-level benefits at an 
· · individUCil (rather tb<:tn cumulative) level. Overall .benefits produced by, a generally applicable 
statute, such as the NCLB Act, do not entitle every foreign wdrker covered by tbat law tp specia,l 
immigration benefits such as the national interest waiver.- --
Counsel stated: "Given the mediocre performance by American students iii Math and Science 
globally, [the petitioner's] success in the state of Maryland would certainly_ bear national impact." 
The petitioner submitted no evidence to show that her individual work had produced "nCitional 
ili1p(lct" in the course of six years. of employment in a Baltimore public school while the provisions 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
of the NCLB Act were already in effect. Counsel provided some infotmation about 
but the petitioner has never worked for that district, and the petitioner did 
not show that she was responsible for improvements there. 
Counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] is one of the 59% [of] special educators in the nation with a Master's 
degree. 
[The petitioner J is one of the 92% [of] special educators with full certification . 
. The above information indicates that most special education teachers have master's degrees, and almost 
all of them have "full certification." The petitioner's possession of these commonly-held credentials 
does not set her apart from others in her fielg. Given the ~bove figures, those credentials represent a 
degree of expertise ordinarily encountered in the field of special education, and therefore a master's 
degree and ·fun certification do not indicate exceptional ability or the higher threshold neCessary to 
qualify for the national interest waiver. 
Counsel cited studies indicating that special education teachers "with more training were more likely to 
indicate they intended to leave." Counsel claimed that, "given [the petitioner's] highly achieved 
qualifications, she is not one of those with more training more likely to indicate they intended to leave," 
althot1gh the record shows that the. petitioner Stopped teaching special education students a 
year before she filed the petition. The same cited studies indicated tbat the correlation exi.sted only with 
regard to "intent to leave''; they showed no such correlation with "leaving, moving ot exiting." 
Therefore, the study, as described by counsel, does not appear to show that more highly trained teachers 
actUally act i.ipon their "intent to leave" in greater numbers than other special education teachers .. 
With respect to the a.ssertion that the petitioner is. especially highly trained in special education, she does 
not appear to hold an academic degree in that specialty. Her bachelor's degree is in ''general 
elementary" education, and her master's degree is in music education. · ···· 
A local labor shortage does not warrant the national interest waiver, because the labor certification 
process is already in place to address such shortages. SeeNYSDOT at 218. · Counsel claimed: "it has 
been demonstrated that shortage is notthe bench mark of[the petitioner's] request for[the] waiver,;' but 
the petitioner's own evidence points toward such a shortage. Baltimore h.as hjred large nt1mbers of 
foreign teachers - "about a thousand" from the Philippines alone, without conS:idering other coll11tries -
and counsel cited information about attrition rates in special education. The petitioner herself stated: 
"Ametkafi people recruited Filipino teachers to fill the shortage of teachers especially in SpeCial 
Education ... in Baltimore, Maryland." · . 
Counsel claimed that granting the waiver protects the interests of U.S. workers; because the petitioner's 
students will eventwllly "more competitive in the job market" CoUfisel did not establish ho~ the long­
term effects of the petitioner's .work would have national scope. Because the petitioner has worked with 
elementary school students, the claimed results would not be evident for several yel.lrs, and USCIS will 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 8 
not approve the waiver based on speculative long-term projections unsupported by prior data. See 
NYSDOTat 219. 
Counsel claimed that the labor certification process would pose a "dilemma" because the petitioner's 
qualifications exceed the rrtiilitnum requirements for the position, artd "the employer is required by No 
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law ... to employ highly qualified teachers.'' Counsel did not show that 
these two considerations are incompatible. Section 9101(23) of the NCU~ Act d~fines the tellJl 
"highly qtm.lified teacher." By the statutory definition, a "highly qualified" school teacher: 
• has obtained full State certification as a teacher or passed the State teacher licensing 
examination, and holds a license to teach in such State; 
• bolds at least a bachelor's degree; artd 
• demonstrates competence in the academic subjects he or she teaches. 
Section 9101(23)(A)(ii) of the NCLB Act further indicates that a teacher is not "Highly Qualified" if 
he or she has "had certification ot licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or 
provisional basis." Counsel did not explain how the above requirements are incompatible with the 
existing labor certification process, and the p~titioner sub!Ilitted no evidence th.a.t the labor certification 
has resulted in the widespread employment of teachers who ate less than "highly qualified." The 
minimum degree requirement is the same for labor certification as it is for a highly qualified teacher 
(i.e., a bachelor's degree). 
Counsel claimed: 
there is more li~elihood than not as dicUtted by experience that replacing . 'Highly 
. Qualified Teachers' with those having oilly minimum qualification that 
these federally 
funded schools would fail to meet the high standard required under the No Child Left 
Behind (NCLB) Law resulting not only [in] closure of tbese schools but loss of work 
for those workjng i:n those schools. 
Counsel identified no "federally funded school" that has closed as a result of failing to meet NCLB Act 
standards; and no school that, due to labor certification, has "replac[ed) Highly Qualified Tea.chets" 
with less qualified teachers. Counsel's unsupported claim is not evidence. Matter ofObaigbend' at 634 
n..Z, citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez at 506. Also, counsel did not show that awarding the waiver to 
the petitioner would prevent school closures on a nationally significant scale. . 
The director had instructed the petitioner to doqu;nent the i.mporta11ce of the aW{lrds she bas received. 
The petitioner did not do so. Instead, counsel listed the certificates a second time, and stated that the 
petitioner need not establish exceptional ability because she qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. 
The director denied the petition on May 2, 2013, stating that, whlle the pet_itioper made cont.ributions 
to her particular school, "a national interest waiver cahhot be granted simply because the beneficiary 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
is involved in an important endeavor." The director found that the petitioner l;lad not established the 
national scope of the petitioner's past ot intended future work. ' 
. On appeal, counsel repeats several paragraphs frorn the response to the request for evidence, 
regarding the claim that Congress intended the NCLB Act to clarify the national interest with respect 
to education. Counsel quotes section. 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act and related legislation, and asserts: 
"Bas.ed on these statutory provisions, the requirement of a job offer or labor certificate for the 
occupation of Pre-K/Elemefitary School teacher that [the petitioner] is seeking may be waived jf it is 
established that she will substantially benefit prospectively the national educational interests of the 
United States." The ·statute, however, states that an alien who ''will substantially benefit 
prospectively the national ... educational interests ... of the United States" must also show that his 
or her "services ... are sought by all employer in the United States." The statute acknowledges that 
every foreign worker who quaiifies for classification under section 203(b )(1) of the Act "will 
substantially benefit prospectively the ... United States," and imposes thejob offer requirement on 
all those individuals. 
Counsel states that the petitioner ''framed her national interest waiver application within the context 
of not on,ly the NCLB Act, but also the Obama administration's current initiatives aimed at 
ellhallcillg that law." Counsel, however, identifies no statute, regulation, case law, ot other policy 
instrument that creates a blanket waiver for teachers. Counsel has cited a specific section of the 
NCLB Act (section 5) to show when that law took effect, but counsel has not done the same to 
support the claim that Congress intended the NCLB 
Act as ail immigration bill for foreign teachers. 
Statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute itself. Pen.nsylvaniq Department of 
Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552 (1990). Statutory language must be given conclusive 
weight unless the legislature expresses an intention to the contrary. lnt 'I. Brotherhood of Electrical 
Workers, Local Union No. 474, AFL-C/0 v. NLRB, 814 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Where the 
language of a statute is clear on its face, there is no need to inquire into Congressional intent. INS \J. · 
Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183 (1984). Congress defined teacherS as professionals at section 101(a)(32) 
of the Act, and subjected professionals to the job offer requirement at section 203(b )(2)(A) of the 
Act. Both of those provisions remain in effect. 
Counsel claims-: "a new thought process must be designed _by USCIS with respect to NIW petitions 
by 'Highly Qualified Teachers' instead of routinely applying the Mattet of New York State Dept. of 
Transportation generically." 8- C.F.R. § 103.3(c) provides that precedent dedsiolls, such as 
NYSDOT, are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of the Act. Counsel claims that 
NYSDOT, which concerned a bridge engineer, "is good in far as NIW cases filed by Engineers are 
concerned but does not give justiCe to other professionals especially since the facts are definitely 
distinct from each other." The three-part national interest test in NYSDOT is, by design, broad and 
flexible. It does not include specific evidentiary requirements that only an engineer could satisfy, 
and its application is not, and was not intended to be, limited to engineers. 
Counsel contends that NYSDOT "requires overly burdensome evidence on the qualification of the 
self-petitioner, identical to EB-1 e~traordinary requirements when the law makes it avaiiable to those 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
either 'with an advanced degree' or 'exceptional ability."' The evidentiary requirements to establish 
extraordinary ability appear at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Those requirements are not "identical" to the 
guidelines in NYSDOT. Concerning counsel's assertion that the waiver is "available to those either 
'with an advanced degree' or 'exceptional ability,"' those qualifications make one eligibl~ to apply 
for the waiver, but do not guarantee the approval of that application. 
Counsel claims th~t the director's request for evidence "required vague and overly burdensome 
evidence more fitting to the cause ofart Engineer." Counsel did not elaborate on this assertion with 
any example of an evid~ntiary request that applies to engineers but not to teachers. 
Counsel qu.otes remarks!made by then.,Presidertt George H.W~ Bush when he signed the Immigr~tion 
Act of 1990, which created the· national interest waiver: "This bill provides for vital increases for 
entry on the basis of skills, infusing the ranks of oqr scientists and engineers and educators,. with new 
blood and new ideas." Counsel interprets this passage to mean that Congress created the national 
interest waiver for educators. President Bush, however, did not mention the national interest waiver 
in his remarks; he was discussing the Immigration Act of 1990 as a whole, which included 
provisions that subject members of the professions (including "scientists and engineers and 
educators") to the job offer requirement. 
Counsel states: "The standard in other words iS not national geography but national intellection 
directed to recapture the nation's economic dominance. This is what is called 'Bridging the Gap.' 
Syllogistically, hiring 'Highly Qualified Teachers' would produce more graduates than dropouts." 
The existence of federal education polky does not give national impact to the efforts of one 
schoolteacher, and the petitioner has not established that the hiring of ohe "Highly Qualified 
Teacher" increases graduation rates. ·Going on record without supporting doctim~nt~ry evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 
I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Counsel cites various Depaltll1ent of Education publications concerning the 
goals of the NCLB Act and other federal programs, but no evidence documenting the results of tnose 
programs a decade after the NCLB Act's enactment. Instead, counsel cites recent statistics regarding 
continued · poor student performance by students in communities with large populations of 
underprivileged and minority students, several years after the passage of the NCLB Act. Eligibility 
for the waiver rests on the merits of the individual seeking tbe waiver, and the record does not show 
that the petitioner has had or will have a nationally significant impact on graduation rates. Being a 
"Highly Qualified Teacher" under the NCLB Act does not establish or imply eligibility for the 
national interest waiver. 
Counsel states: 
USCIS-Texas Service Center 
has not specified what it meant by 'any contributions of 
unusual significance that would warrant a national interest waiver.' There is no 
clarity on this particular requirement and yet, the Director has e~sily dismissed the 
incomparable accomplishmentS of [the petitioner] as submitted in her Case File. By 
(b)(6)
P~ge 11 
NON-PRECEDENT I)ECISION 
requmng the petitiOner to submit evidence of ambiguous nature is 'unduly 
burdensome' and in effect tantamount to requiring 'impossible evidence' for being 
extremely subjective. 
The lack of cl,ear standard on this particular requirement leaves the finding of 
insufficiency by USCIS-Texas Service Center highly speculative, witbout factua_I 
basis and rather drawn in thin air. 
the mandate. for 'flexibility in the adjud_ication ofNIW cases' ... mu.st be constflled 
liber~lly mther tban strictly compared to the New York State Department 'of 
Transportation case. US<2IS is now requited by United States Congress through the 
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ... to make it ''flexible["] and thus pos$ible rather 
than impossible· in favor of the 'Best Interest of the School Children,' by granting 
waivers to 'Highly Qualified Teachers' who have already been serving the cause 
instead of requiring labor certification which may only reveal uncommitted U.S. 
workers with minimum education qualification. 
The petitioner has not submitted evidence to establish that her accomplishments are ''incomparable." 
After suggesting that the director's decision is "drawn in thin air," counsel asserts that the NCLBA 
did not merely imply that USCIS should grant the waiver to "highly qualified teachers," it"required" 
USCIS to do so. The NCLBA does not establish or imply a blanket waiver for teachers. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner 
"is an effective teacher in raising student achievement in_ STEM" 
(science, technology, engineering and mathematics) and points to her "proven success in raising 
proficiency of her students." Counsel cites no evidence on appeal to allow a comparison between 
the petitioner's success in these areas and that ofother qualified teachers. Counsel's assertions are 
not evidence. Matter of Obaigbena at 634 n.2, citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez at 506. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner "has submitted overwhelming evidence" of eligibility, and lists 
. several previously submitted exhibits under the heading "Awatds and Recognition." The petitioner 
has not established that these materials are ''overwhelming evidence" in her favor. Local recognition 
can help support a claim of exceptional ability, under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), 
but exceptional ability does not establish or imply eligibility for the waiver. · 
One exhibit that counsel has more than once identified among the ''awards and recognition" is the ABS­
CBN News story that included interviews with the petitioner and several other Filipino teachers. 
Counsel stated that this interview shows the petitioner's "recognition as a leader in her community of 
Filipino educators in the United States," but the article itself never calls her "a leader in her 
co:rfi:rfiurtity." It stated that several "teachers converge in [the petitioner's] home ... for an outreach 
program of the Philippine Embassy." 
Counsel contends ''the Director is requiring more from the beneficiary's credentials tantamount to 
having exceptional ability;" even though one need not qualify as an alien of exceptional ability in order 
to receive the waiver. It is evident from the statute that the threshold for exceptional ability is below, 
(b)(6)
I 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 12 
not above, the threshold for the n(l.tional interest waiver; it is possible to establish exceptional ability but 
still not qualify for the waiver. Also, the direc;tor did 110t require tbe petitioner 'to establish exceptional 
ability in her field. Instead, the director follhd that the petitioner's evidence f(l.iled to establish that .her 
work has had an influence beyond the school districts where he has. worked. 
The petitioner h(I.S not established a past record of achievement at a level that would justify a'waiver of 
the job offer requirement. The petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national 
acclaim, but the national interest waiver contempla~es that the petitioner's influence be national in 
scope. NYSDOT at 217, Ii.3. More Specifically, the petitioner "must clearly present a significa11t qenefit 
to the field of endeavor." /d. at 218. See also ld. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have "a past history of 
demonstrable achievement with some degree of il1fl1;1ence on theJield as a whole."). 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession, sucb as te£tcbJilg, 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 t.Pe basis of the overall importance of a given 
profession, rather than on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the 
petitioner has not established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be 
in the national interest of the United States. 
The AAO will dismiss the appeal for the above st.ated-teasons. II}, visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility fot the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U,S.C. § 1361; Mqtter of Otiende, 26 I&N :Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitionet has hot 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
J