dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

US. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Of$ce ofAdministrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
identiE,+ 'nib. deleted to 
prevent CIS. .. 1; ~nw'qrranted 
 U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
invasion of personal privacj 
FILE: LIN 07 147 5233 1 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER Date: NOV 1 9 2009 
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. 5 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
LIN 07 147 52331 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as an alien of exceptional ability or a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a special education teacher - autism. 
The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of an alien 
employment certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director concluded that 
the petitioner was not eligible for the classification sought and that she had not established that an 
exemption fiom the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
The AAO maintains plenary power to review each appeal on a de novo basis. 5 U.S.C. 5 557(b) ("On 
appeal from or review of the initial decision, the agency has all the powers which it would have in 
making the initial decision except as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule."); see also Janka v. 
US. Dept. of Transp., NTSB, 925 F.2d 1 147, 1 149 (9th Cir. 1991). The AAO1s de novo authority has 
been long recognized by the federal courts. See, e.g., Dor v. INS, 891 F.2d 997, 1002 n. 9 (2d Cir. 
1989). 
On appeal, counsel submits a brief and additional evidence, most of which was already part of the 
record of proceeding. For the reasons discussed below, we concur with the director that the petitioner 
does not qualifl for the classification sought, although we reach this conclusion not because the job 
does not require an advanced degree but because the petitioner does not have such a degree or its 
equivalent as defined at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2). We further find that the petitioner has not established 
that she is an alien of exceptional ability, precluding her fiom establishing eligibility for the 
classification sought. Finally, we uphold the director's finding that the petitioner has not established 
that a waiver of the job offer would be in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states in pertinent part that: 
(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. 
LIN 07 147 5233 1 
Page 3 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to 
be in the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) 
that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be 
sought by an employer in the United States. 
In pertinent part, section 203(b)(2) of the Act provides immigrant classification to members of the 
professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent. An advanced degree is a United States 
academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2). The regulation further states: "A United States baccalaureate degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty 
shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree." Id. (Emphasis added.) 
The director concluded that the proposed employment, special education teacher, did not require a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree. While not cited by the director, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(4) provides the following: 
(i) General. 
 Every petition under this classification must be accompanied by an 
individual labor certification from the Department of Labor, by an application for 
Schedule A designation (if applicable), or by documentation to establish that the alien 
qualifies for one of the shortage occupations in the Department of Labor's Labor Market 
Information Pilot Program. To apply for Schedule A designation or to establish that the 
alien's occupation is within the Labor Market Information Program, a fully executed 
uncertified Form ETA-750 in duplicate must accompany the petition. The job offer 
portion of the individual labor certification, Schedule A application, or Pilot Program 
application must demonstrate that the job requires a professional holding an advanced 
degree or the equivalent or an alien of exceptional ability. 
(ii) Exemption from the job offer. The director may exempt the requirement of a job 
offer, and thus of a labor certification . . .. 
The requirement that the job offer must require a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an alien of exceptional ability is found only at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(4)(i). The petitioner, 
however, seeks a waiver of that requirement pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(4)(ii). As the petitioner 
seeks to have the job offer waived, there can be no requirement that the proposed job require an 
advanced degree professional or an alien of exceptional ability. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
5 204.5(k)(4)(ii) does not suggest that the petitioner must demonstrate that the proposed job requires 
a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional ability. Thus, we 
withdraw the director's concerns on this issue. 
While not addressed by the director, of more concern is whether the petitioner herself is a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner holds a bachelor's degree in business 
education from Kenyatta University. The petitioner holds a baccalaureate and her occupation falls 
LIN 07 147 5233 I 
Page 4 
within the pertinent statutory and regulatory definitions of a profession. Section 10 1 (a)(32) of the Act; 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2). At issue is whether she holds an advanced degree or its equivalent as defined at 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2). While she claims to have received a Master's degree in special education after 
the date of filing, that degree cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of 
Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Cornm'r. 1971). Rather, counsel has asserted that the petitioner 
qualifies as an advanced degree professional based on her five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience. On the petitioner's self-serving curriculum vitae she lists several years of experience as a 
business teacher in Kenya and less than five years of special education experience in the United States. 
Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the 
burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r. 1998) (citing 
Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l. Cornrn'r. 1972)). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(g)(l) provides, in pertinent part, that evidence of experience "shall 
be in the form of letter(s) fiom current or former employer(s) or trainer(s) and shall include the name, 
address, and title of the writer, and a specific description of the duties performed by the alien." It 
logically follows that where evidence is being submitted to demonstrate a sufficient amount of 
experience, the dates of employment must also be included. 
As evidence of her employment in Kenya, the petitioner submitted (1) her 1989 Certificate of 
Registration from the Teachers Service Commission, (2) certificates of Merit from the Ministry of 
Education, Thika District, for accounting in 1997 and commerce in 1999, 2000 and 2001, (3) a 
November 14, 2001 letter from the Teachers Service Commission confirming that the petitioner was a 
"graduate teacher" at Mangu High School in Thika, (4) a February 25,2000 letter from the Man 
School thanking the petitioner for her hard work in 1999 and (5) a June 26, 2001 letter from 
of the same school, confirming that the petitioner joined the school in May 
asserts that the etitioner worked as a counselor, teacher, patron and Head of the Department of 
Business Education. 
I h does not imply that the petitioner worked with autistic students or in 
another area of special education during this time. Thus, none of this post-baccalaureate experience 
was in the petitioner's current specialty, special education. 
On her curriculum vitae, the petitioner indicates that she worked as an art and food instructor at a 
program for autistic adults from 2003 through 2006. The petitioner did not submit a letter from this 
employer. As stated above, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 
165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). The petitioner also indicated 
that she worked at the North Cobb Christian School as a teacher's assistant from January 2003 through 
July 2005 and as a special education instructor fiom January 2004 through 2005. Once again, this 
employment is not documented in the record other than as provided on her self-serving curriculum 
vitae and will not be considered. Id. 
In addition, the petitioner claimed to have worked as a special education teacher 
Haven Academy as of February 2006. The petitioner submitted an undated letter from 
LIN 07 147 5233 1 
Page 5 
School Psychologist at Haven Academy. In this letter,asserts that she has worked with the 
petitioner as a colleague "over the past three years" and confirms that the petitioner "is one of the 
faculty members with HAVEN Academy." This undated letter does not establish the exact dates of 
employment and is from a coworker rather than an administrator or human resources official. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted several letters 
dated in early 2008 from administrators and coworkers at Barber Middle School confirming the 
petitioner's employment as a teacher at that school beginning in that school year. 
The petition was filed on April 25, 2007. Thus, the petitioner must demonstrate at least five years of 
post-baccalaureate experience in special education as of that date. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1977); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, at 49. Even if we concluded that the petitioner began working in special education in 2003 as 
claimed on her self-serving curriculum vitae, she could not establish five years of experience in that 
specialty as of April 25,2007. As neither the petitioner's baccalaureate nor her five years of experience 
are in special education, the profession in which she proposes to work, the petitioner has not established 
that she is an advanced degree professional in her proposed occupation. We note that being a member 
of one profession does not entitle the alien to classification as a professional if she does not seek to 
continue working in the same profession. See Matter of Shah, 17 I&N Dec. 244, 246-47 (Reg'l. 
Comm'r. 1977). We are not persuaded that business education and special education are the same 
profession. 
We acknowledge that counsel has also asserted that the petitioner qualifies as an alien of exceptional 
ability. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth six criteria, at least three of which an 
alien must meet in order to qualify as an alien of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or 
business. These criteria follow below. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered." Therefore, evidence submitted to establish 
exceptional ability must somehow place the alien above others in the field in order to fulfill the 
criteria below; qualifications possessed by every member of a given field cannot demonstrate "a 
degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered." The petitioner claims to meet 
the following criteria at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
An official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar 
award from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of 
exceptional ability 
Counsel asserts on appeal that the petitioner's baccalaureate in business education and six years of 
experience teaching in Kenya serve to meet this criterion. Regarding the petitioner's experience, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) requires the submission of academic records to meet this 
criterion. Nothing in this regulation suggests that evidence of experience may be submitted in lieu of 
LIN 07 147 5233 1 
Page 6 
a degree, diploma, certificate or award from an educational institution. While post-baccalaureate 
experience may be equated to an advanced degree for purposes of eligibility as a member of the 
professions with an advanced degree, experience may not be substituted for education under this 
criterion for aliens of exceptional ability. We note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. $ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B) 
is a separate criterion relating to experience. Thus, we will only consider the petitioner's 
baccalaureate, her basic counseling skills course certificates from the Amani Counselling Centre and 
Training Institute in Nairobi and her computer course transcript from Kenyatta University, the only 
degrees, diplomas, certificates or other awards from an educational institution as of the priority date. 
Section 203(b)(2)(C) of the Act provides that the possession of a degree, diploma, certificate or 
similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not by itself be 
considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability. Thus, we must determine whether the 
petitioner's degree is indicative of or consistent with a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field of special education. 
The computer courses are not within the petitioner's area of claimed exceptional ability, special 
education or even education generally. We are not persuaded that a baccalaureate in business 
education and two counseling courses are indicative of a degree of expertise in special education 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered among special education teachers. In fact, the record 
contains several job announcements for special education teachers requiring a Master's degree. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence in the form of letter(s) from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at 
least ten years of full-time experience in the occupation for which he or she is being sought 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) requires evidence of tens years of experience "in the 
occupation" proposed. As discussed above, the petitioner has not even documented five years of 
experience as a special education teacher, the occupation she seeks to pursue in the United States. 
Thus, she cannot meet this criterion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation 
Counsel asserts on appeal that the petitioner meets this criterion because she possesses a Georgia 
Educator Certificate in special education from the Georgia Professional Standards Commission. 
Section 203(b)(2)(C) of the Act provides that the possession of a license to practice or certification 
for a particular profession or occupation shall not by itself be considered sufficient evidence of 
exceptional ability. Thus, we must determine whether the petitioner's certificate is indicative of or 
consistent with a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered. 
If the certification is required to teach special education in Georgia, it cannot be considered evidence 
that the petitioner has a degree of expertise above that ordinarily encountered in the field. Even if we 
LIN 07 147 5233 1 
Page 7 
accepted that the petitioner meets this criterion, it is only one criterion. The evidence falls far short 
of establishing that the petitioner meets any other criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner meets this criterion based on her membership in Georgia 
Community Support and Solutions (GCSS), the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and the 
Georgia Association of Educators (GAE). The petitioner did not submit evidence of her membership 
in GCSS and the materials submitted about this entity indicate that it is a facility rather than a 
professional association. According to the materials submitted, CEC appears open to all special 
education professionals. According to the materials submitted, membership in the GAE appears 
open to all public school employees. 
On appeal, counsel correctly notes that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E) does not 
require membership in associations that require outstanding achievements. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 8 204.5(i)(3)(i)(B). That said, the evidence submitted to meet a given 
criterion must be indicative of or consistent with a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field if that regulatory standard is to have any meaning. We are not 
persuaded that the petitioner's membership in associations that appear open to all professionals in the 
petitioner's occupation are indicative of or consistent with exceptional ability as defined at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(2). 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field by 
peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the reference letters submitted serve to meet this criterion. We are 
not persuaded that letters solicited by the petitioner to support the petition constitute the necessary 
formal recognition contemplated by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 3 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). The only formal 
recognition in the record relates to the petitioner's recognition in business education in Kenya. These 
certificates of merit are not indicative of any degree of expertise in special education. Thus, the 
petitioner has not established that she meets this criterion. 
As the petitioner has not demonstrated that she is an alien of exceptional ability, the issue of whether 
waiving the job offer requirement is in the national interest is moot. Nevertheless, we will follow the 
director's prudent course of also addressing whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of the 
job offer requirement, and thus an alien employment certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, Congress 
did not provide a specific definition of the phrase, "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 
LIN 07 147 52331 
Page 8 
by increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 101 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1989). 
A supplementary notice regarding the regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 
(IMMACT), 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 
with the alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dep% of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. 2 15, 2 17- 18 (Comm'r. 1998) (hereinafter 
"NYSDOT"), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a 
national interest waiver. First, it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. Id. at 217. Next, it must be shown that the proposed benefit will be national 
in scope. Id. 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. Id. at 2 1 7- 1 8. 
It must be noted that, whle the national interest waiver hinges onprospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. Id. at 219. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien 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 alien, rather than to facilitate the entry 
of an alien with no demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would 
thus be entirely speculative. Id. 
We concur with the director that the petitioner works in an area of intrinsic merit, special education. 
The director then concluded that the proposed benefits of the petitioner's work would not be national 
in scope. As quoted by the director, NKSDOT provides: 
[Plro 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. 
LIN 07 147 5233 1 
Page 9 
Id. at 217, n.3. 
 Based on the above reasoning, the director concluded that the impact of the 
petitioner's work as a special education teacher would be so attenuated at the national level as to be 
negligible. 
On appeal, counsel notes that autism is not a regional issue and that 1.5 million Americans may have 
some form of autism. Counsel further discusses the serious symptoms of autism and notes that there 
is no cure. As stated by counsel, autistic children require special teachers in structured programs that 
emphasize individual instruction and early intervention. Counsel then discusses the petitioner's 
duties as a special education program developer and teacher. Counsel notes that the petitioner's 
students must meet Georgia academic standards and those set forth in the No Child Left Behind Act. 
Counsel notes that the petitioner is responsible for developing ways "to improve her classroom and 
curriculum for her students in order to better control their behavioral outbreaks and overall, improve 
their learning ability." Counsel fwther asserts that the petitioner "was the first person in the United 
States" to study the results of (the petitioner's academic advisor) and - 
Hess and adapt them to her own classroom. Counsel concludes that the petitioner has had success 
using this model, which will eventually be the subject of a website that "will truly make this a 
national revelation." Finally, counsel asserts that the petitioner's work will reduce the federal 
government costs for the care and support of autistic individuals. 
Counsel is not persuasive. Most of counsel's assertions go to the substantial intrinsic merit of the 
petitioner's occupation, an issue that is not in contention. We are not persuaded that the petitioner 
can convert an occupation with an intrinsically local impact into one with a national scope simply by 
proposing to someday chronicle her work on a website that can be accessed nationally. Given the 
ease with which anyone can begin a website, holding otherwise would render the national scope 
requirement meaningless. Finally, the national prevalence of and costs associated with autism do not 
result in a determination that a single special education teacher will have an impact at the national 
level. 
 Ultimately, the petitioner proposes to work at a single school at a time. 
 Her primary 
responsibility will be to teach at that school. There is no indication she seeks to work for a national 
entity that develops curricula for special education teachers or trains teachers nationwide. 
Significantly, NYSDOT did not reach its conclusion regarding teachers by stating that education itself 
is a regional issue. 22 I&N Dec. at 21 7 n.3. In a similar vein, that decision did not state that the 
costs of failing to educate the nation's children would be a regional cost. Id. Rather, that decision 
concluded that a single teacher's impact at the national level would be negligible. As such, counsel's 
assertions that autism is not a regional concern and that its costs are a national concern are irrelevant. 
It remains that a single special education teacher's impact at the national level would be negligible. 
In light of the above, we concur with the director that the petitioner has not demonstrated that her 
work as a teacher will have benefits that are national in scope. 
The final issue is to determine whether the petitioner will benefit the national interest to a greater 
extent than an available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. At the outset, we note 
that the petitioner submits evidence on appeal from the Journal of Special Education providing that 
LIN 07 147 52331 
Page 10 
"there is a critical shortage of special education teachers in the United States." Counsel concludes: 
"The position is of such great importance and the labor market is substantially smaller than the 
demand for such specialized professions such as [the petitioner] that she should not have to have a 
permanent job offer or have an employer test the labor market with the labor certification application 
process." NYSDOT, however, states that a labor shortage claim is not an argument against the alien 
employment certification process. 22 I&N Dec. at 220. Rather, such a claim should be tested through 
that process. Id. The issue of whether similarly-trained workers are available in the United States is an 
issue under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor. Id. at 22 1. 
Eligibility for the waiver must rest with the alien's own qualifications rather than with the position 
sought. In other words, we generally do not accept the argument that a given project is so important 
that any alien qualified to work on this project must also qualify for a national interest waiver. At 
issue is whether this petitioner's contributions in the field are of such unusual significance that the 
petitioner merits the special benefit of a national interest waiver, over and above the visa 
classification she seeks. By seeking an extra benefit, the petitioner assumes an extra burden of proof. 
A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the 
field as a whole. Id. at 21 9, n. 6. 
The record contains no work by the petitioner that has been disseminated at the national level, such 
as studies in autism education published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at nationally attended 
seminars or published curricula authored by the petitioner and adopted or considered by various 
school jurisdictions nationwide. Rather, the petitioner relies exclusively on reference letters solicited 
by the petitioner in support of the petition. The letters are all from the petitioner's close circle of 
colleagues and three parents of her students. The director concluded that the letters were insufficient 
and that the record lacked evidence of the etitioner's influence in special education such as might be 
demonstrated by the methods of 4 and applied by the petitioner in her own 
classroom. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner's classrooms serve as a model and training rubric for 
Cobb County and neighboring counties and that the petitioner's work substantially benefits the 
country's understanding and means of instructing students with autism and severe behavioral 
disorders. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 79 1, 795 
(Comm'r. 1988). However, USCIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination 
regarding an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts 
supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; USCIS may evaluate the content of 
those letters as to whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795. USCIS may even give 
less weight to an opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way 
questionable. Id. at 795; see also Matter of SofJici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). 
LIN 07 147 5233 1 
Page 11 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of talent and ability 
are less persuasive than letters that provide specific examples of how the petitioner has influenced 
the field. 
 In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the 
petitioner through her reputation and who have applied her work are the most persuasive. 
While studying for her Master's degree, the petitioner was a student of According tom 
during the 2006-2007 school year, the petitioner "took a leading pioneering position in the 
implementation of 'The Model Classroom' which she did following recommendations and guidelines 
in the tool 'Enhancing Instructional Contexts for students with 
petitioner also implemented this program at Barber Middle School in the 2007-2008 school year. 
This work postdates the petition and cannot be considered. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. Regardless, the petitioner has never explained how implementing 
someone else's work constitutes evidence of her own impact in the field. Significantly, even 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. Id. at 221, n. 7. 
teaching the Georgia Standards and The Georgia Alternative ~urriculum.'' Neither 
 nor 
explains how the petitioner, prior to the date of filing, had impacted the field of special 
education at the national level. 
a teacher at Barber Middle School, asserts that the petitioner's "remarkable 
contribution" is evidenced through her "commitment, extra effort and exemplary work which has 
ielded excellent academic results in [the] form of student's [sic] results." TG results referenced by 
h however, are those of the petitioner's business students in Kenya, not her special education 
students. Regardless, not every competent teacher whose students succeed is eligible for a national 
interest waiver of the job offer. Regarding the petitioner's work in special education, asserts 
that the petitioner's work implementing the ideas of and "has opened doors for 
other teachers since this program has been used to train other teachers both in the [sic] Cobb County 
and outside without which the Special Education and education sector in general could be comprised 
[sic]." affirms her personal observation of the effectiveness of the EIC-ASD Model 
Classroom program. Other letters from Cobb County faculty, such as teacher and speech 
language pathologis confirm that the petitioner's classroom has impacted the 
schools where she has taught. These letters, however, do not confirm the petitioner's influence at the 
national level. 
LIN 07 147 5233 1 
Page 12 
The record shows that the petitioner is respected by her colleagues and has made useful contributions 
to the schools where she has taught. It does not follow, however, that every special education 
teacher implementing a successful classroom model developed by someone else inherently serves the 
national interest to an extent that justifies a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
As is clear from a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt from the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved alien employment certification will be in 
the national interest of the United States. 
For the above stated reasons, considered both in sum and as separate grounds for denial, the petition 
may not be approved. The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This denial is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition with a new priority date by a United 
States employer accompanied by an alien employment certification certified by the Department of 
Labor, appropriate supporting evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.