dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

(b)(6)
·' 
DATE: 
APR 0 9 2013 
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 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and ·Immigration 
Services ·) 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 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. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: ) 
Enclosed please fmd the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
· · related to this_ matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its. decision, or you have additional 
. information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accordance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal ~r Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8. C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
.. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Acting Chief, Adininistrative Appeals 
Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administ;fative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appe~l. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203'(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
. Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as an elementary special education teacher with 
At the time she filed the petition, the petitioner worked at 
Mitchellville, Maryland. The petiti<?ner asserts that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United 
States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner·. submits a brief from counsel and statistics about the test performance of 
PGCPS students .. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -
(A) In General. - ·visas shall be made available . .' . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who · 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. · . 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney Generai may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. · 
The ·director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a .labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
.. Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in .the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
increasing the nwnber 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). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990, published at 
56 Fed. Reg. 60897, 60900 (November"29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
·appropriate to leave the 
application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly 
an alien seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing 
significantly above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" 
[required of aliens seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the 
alien to establish that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the 
national interest. Each case is to be judged ·on its own merits. 
In reNew York State Dept. of Transportation (NYSD01), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 
1998), has set forth several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national 
interest waiver. First, the petitioner must show that the 
alien seeks employment in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit. Next, the petitioner must show that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. 
Finally, the petitioner must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially 
greater degree than would an available United States worker ha~g the same minimwn qualifications. 
While the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. The petitioner's 
subjective assirrance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The intention behind the term "prospective" is to require future 
contributions by the alien, tather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely speculative. 
The AAO also notes that the USCIS regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability'' 
as "a degree of expertise significantly above that ·ordinarily encountered" in a given area of 
endeavor. By statute, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor 
certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their excq)tional ability. . Therefore, 
whether a given alien seeks classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating 
a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner file9 the Form 1-140 petition on April 19, 2012. In an accompanying statement, 
counsel stated that the petitioner seeks the waiver "based on her expertise in the said field as . . 
evidenced by her nwnerous awards and citations from various institutions here in the United States 
and the testimonials on her behalf from her esteemed peers, parents of her pupils and superiors in the 
United States public school system." 
Regarding counsel's claims of "nwnerous awards and citations," the USCIS regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) ·states that "evidence of recognition for achievements and significant 
(b)(6)
·Page 4 
contributions to the industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations" can form part of a claim of exceptional ability. Exceptional ability, in turn, does not 
guarantee the waiver, because the statute clearly subjects aliens of exceptional ability to the job offer 
requirement. Therefore, the very existence of "awards and citations" does not necessarily imply 
eligibility for the waiver. It falls to the petitioner to show that she has received recognition of a 
caliber that goes beyond the sort that meets the lower threshold of exceptional ability. The evidence 
submitted does not meet the higher standard required for the national interest waiver. 
Counsel's list of "Awards and Recognitions" included only one document that could plausibly be 
called an "award." Specifically, the in Manila presented the 
petitioner with a "Certificate of Recognition ... As Outstanding Teacher of 
[for] School Year 2005-2006." Other certificates expressed appreciation for 
speeches or presentations that the petitioner gave to various groups, and many certificates simply 
acknowledged that the petitioner had held various titles. Universities in Manila recognized the 
petitioner's involvement in training individual student teachers, and g~ve the. petitioner 
several certificates "For Completion of Professional Performance" and "For Being A Valued Staff 
Member." · 
In a personal statement, the petitioner stated. that. her "strong ability to manage a classroom of 
students with multiple disabilities was honed by the 19 years of progressive experience in the field of 
special education." The petitioner described her dedication to teaching, but neither she nor counsel 
explained why 
the petitioner should qualify for the national interest waiver, which is an extra benefit 
over and above the basic immigrant classification that she seeks. 
The petitioner submitted letters from teachers, administrators, and parents of students at and 
·.schools in the Philippines 
where the petitioner had worked, praising her abilities and dedication. 
school counselor at , described the challenges that the petitioner faces: 
"All of the students here are profoundly intellectually disabled. . . . [M]ost of the students are non­
verbal; 40% of theni cannot walk without mechanical assistance; 50% of them are autistic and all 
have behaviors that reflect the frustration and anger that accompanies their inability to communicate 
and lack of control over their environment." asserted that many teachers have not lasted 
long in such conditions. Such letters indicate that the petitioner and her students must each confront 
daunting obstacles. Nevertheless, the standard for the waiver is that it must serve the national 
interest. Congress, when deciding on the parameters of the exemption from the job offer 
requirement, did not indicate that the difficulties of performing a given task, or of filling a position 
to perform that task, were valid grounds for waiving that requirement. Congress could have created 
a blanket waiver for special education teachers, but did not do so. Instead, the job offer requirement 
applies to members of the professions (such as special education teachers). and 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). The witnesses, however sincere their praise of the 
petitioner's skills, did not demonstrate that the,petitioner's work has had a significant impact or 
influence outside of that one school. They did .not address the NYSDOT guidelines which, as 
published precedent, are binding on all USCIS employees. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(c). That dedsion 
dted elementary school teachers as an example of a profess~on in a field with overall national 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
importance (education), but in which individual workers generally do not produce benefits that are 
national in scope. ld. at 217 n.3. 
The director issued a request for evidence on July 3, 2012, instructing the petitioner to submit 
documentary evidence to establish the "national-level benefits" of her work, as well as its 
"importance and influence." In response, counsel stated: 
Since a 'National Special Education Teacher' is not even a real concept but more of 
metaphysical cognition [sic], undersigned wishes to once again posit a realistic · 
proposition upon which to establish that the self-petitioner's contributions will impart 
national-level benefits. · 
Even authors of books, treatises and other academic materials on Special Education 
are not in any standing [sic] to claim that their contributions are national in scope 
since not all special education teachers can be said to utilize their works.· 
The director did not state that the petitioner had to show that she is ·"a 'National Special Education 
Teacher,"' or that "all special education teachers ... utilize [her] works.". National scope is not the 
same as universal ~eliance on the petitioner's work. 
Counsel stated: "it is but harmless to assert that if an NIW Petition is made with premise on some 
prevailing Acts of United States Congress; that by itself renders the proposed employment national 
in scope.". This assertion may be "harmless," but it is not persuasive. All employment-based 
immigrant classificati-ons are based on "prevailing Acts of United States Congress," and so is the 
statutory job offer requirement. There is no rational basis to conclude that Congress, by mentioning 
a given occupation in a particular piece of legislation, exempted aliens in that occupation from the 
job offer requirement. 
Counsel quoted remarks made· by then-President George H.W. Bush when he signed the 
Immigration 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 our scientists and engineers and 
educators with new blood and new ideas." Counsel interpreted this passage to mean that Congress 
created the national interest waiver for educators. The Immigration Act of 1990, however, was not 
restricted to the creation of the waiver. It was, rather, an overhaul of the entire immigration 
structure, creating new employment-based immigrant classifications to replace the former "third 
preference" and "sixth preference" classifications previously in place. . "[S]cientists and engineers 
and educators" are all members of the professions who, under the terms dictated by Congress in the 
Immigration Act of 1990 (as it amended the Act), are all subject to the job offer requirement. 
Counsel mentioned other legislation and court cases, all of which affirmed the importance of 
education but none of which exempted teachers from the job offer requirement . at section 
203(b)(2){A) of the Act. Counsel asserted: "With the above federal initiatives, it is manifest that the 
United States Government actually dictates the proposed employment to be national in scope." In 
(b)(6)
Page6 
this way, counsel conflates the national importance of "education" as a concept, or "educators" as_a 
class, with the impact of one teacher. 
Counsel stated: "today's United States workers or Special Education Teachers are not as competitive 
as the foreign teachers who are already in the country since not all of-them were educated by 'Highly 
Qualified Teachers.~, This assertion relies on the presumption that "foreign teachers who are 
already in the country ._ .. were educated -by 'Highly Qualified Teachers.'" Counsel cited no 
evidence to support that claim, and the unsupported assertions of counsel do not constitute eVidence. 
See Matter ofObaig~ena, 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). 
Counsel contends that labor certification ''would not meet the objective of the employer to hire highly 
qualified teachers pursuant to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law," because the Department of Labor 
would "most likely'' not permit to "require a Master's degree plus over 15 years of experience." 
Counsel stated that the denial of that labor certification would "stall[] the nation's urgent need for 
'Highly Qualified Teachers."' These assertions rely on the assumption that a less experienced teacher, 
holding only a bachelor's degree, is not "highly qualified" under the No Child Left Behind Act 
(NCLBA). That very statute, however, undermines counsel's assumption. 
Section 9101 (23} of the NCLBA; 20 U.S.C. § 7801 (23), defines the term "highly qualified" in reference 
to teachers. Sections 9101(23)(B) and (C) of the NCLBA require that a "highly qualified" teacher 
"holds at least a bachelor's degree." Section 9101(23)(B) of the NCLBA also refers to "highly 
qualifi~d" teachers who are "new to the profession." Thus, neither the petitioner's master's degree 
nor her "over 15 years of experience" are required for "highly qualified" status under the NCLBA. 
Counsel has, therefore, provided no persuasive support for the claim that the labor certification 
process frustrates the NCLBA's mandate for schools to employ "highly qualified teachers." 
Counsel cited a study showing that special education teachers "shift careers" and move to general 
education, and therefore "[t]he protection afforded for US workers enshrined in the labor 
_ certifi-cation process will not in any way be jeopardized by grant of waiver in favor of' the petitioner. 
The statutory standard is that the waiver will serve the national interest, and counsel's observation 
does not address that standard. Similarly, under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c), NYSDOT is 
binding precedent on all USCIS employees, and counsel's attempts to set it aside and synthesize an 
alternative standard from unrelated statutes cannot succeed. 
According to counsel's own statistics, the petitioner's credentii:tls do not readily stand out. 
Specifically, counsel asserted that "59% [of] special educators in the nation [hold] a Master's degree 
or equivalent," and "92% [of] special educators [have] full certification." These numbers indicate 
that nearly three out of five special educators in the United States possess professional credentials 
comparable to those of the petitioner. Nevertheless, counsel asserted that no two teachers are truly 
alike, owing to intangible factors· that the labor certification process cannot take into account. 
Counsel 
then presumed that the petitioner is superior to United States workers in these 
unquantifiable areas. In effect, counsel declared the petitioner's superiority while also declaring that 
it would be impossible to measure this superiority. 
(b)(6)
Page7 
Counsel stated that another teacher received a national interest waiver, and asked that the 
present petition "be treated in the same light." While AAO precedent decisions are binding on all 
USCIS employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished service center decisions are not 
similarly binding. (In the case of a service center approval, there exists no written decision.) 
Furthermore, counsel has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are 
similar to those in the unpublished decision. Without such evidence, the assertion that both cases 
merit the same outcome is unwarranted. The only stated similarity is that the beneficiary of the 
approved petition is "also a teacher in ." Even 
assuming that the service center correctly approved that petition, the approval does not, in any way, 
endorse or lend weight to the assertion that teachers are collectively entitled to a blanket 
waiver of the job offer/labor certification requirement. 
The petitioner submitted copies or photographs of additional certificates and awards, some received 
after the petition's filing date. The petitioner received an April 16, 2012 certificate from 
"for - - - · -- - . " The wording 
is ambiguous; it is not clear whether the committee nominated the petitioner, or whether the award 
certificate recognized the petitioner's own service on that committee: also presented the 
petitioner with two plaques "for outstanding contributions" in June 2012. 
The petitioner also submitted copies of certificates, photographs, and other materials that document 
the petitioner's career in minute detail, but do not address the NYSDOT guidelines. 
In a new statement, the petitioner observed thai "is debarred for two years and unable to 
sponsor us at this time." The Department of Labor invoked the debarment provisions of section 
212(n)(2)(C)(i) of the Act against owing to certain immigration violations by that employer. 
As a result, between March 16, 2012 and March 15, 2014, USCIS cannot approve any employment­
based immigrant or nonimmigrant petitions filed by 1 This debarment means that is, 
temporarily, unable to file its own petition on the alien's behalf, and thus explains why labor 
certification is not an option in the short term. The inapplicability or unavailability of a labor 
certification cannot be viewed as sufficient cause for a national interest waiver; the petitioner still 
must demonstrate that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than 
do others in the same field. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218 n.5. Neither the Texas Service Center 
nor the AAO is responsible for the debarment, and those entities have no authority to override or 
modify it. When the Department of Labor has penalized a given employer for abuse of the 
immigration process, it is not self-evidently in the national interest to circumvent that penalty by 
granting immigration benefits directly to prospective foreign employees, without the safeguards built 
into the job offer/labor certification process .. Any waiver must rest on the petitioner's individual 
qualifications, rather than on the circumstances that (temporarily) prevent from filing a 
petition on her behalf. · 
1 The list of debarred employers is available online at http://www.dol.gov/whdlimmigration/HlBDebarment.htm (copy 
added to record March 28, 2013). 
(b)(6)
Page 8 
Because the petitioner has not shown that her classroom activities produce national benefits or 
otherwise satisfy the NYSDOT guidelines, the petitioner must establish eligibility by other means. In 
her September 201-2 statement, the petitioner asserted that she is "wor~ng on a book entitled 
r · · " · that could help the special education teachers across. the country understand 
how to adapt curriculum for the same kind of student population or other disabilities." Publication 
and dissemination of such a work has the potential for national benefit, as other teachers can use the 
methods outlined in the book. The petitioner, however, had not shown that she has previously 
published· similar works that have ·widely improved teaching methods. It would be premature to 
grant immigration benefits based on an unfinished book. . One can only speculate as to how many 
teachers would read the book and successfully implement the new methods spelled out therein. The 
petitioner must demonstrate specific prior achievements which establish the alien's ability to benefit 
the national interest. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 219 n.6. Art applicant or petitioner must establish that 
he or she is eligible for the requested benefit at the time of filing the benefit request: 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(1). USCIS cannot properly approve the petition prematurely, based on the expectation of 
future qualifying events. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm 'r 1971 ). In this 
instance, the petitioner did not mention the book at all in her initial submission of April 2012; 
several months later, 'the book was clearly unfinished. 
principal of stated that the petitioner "has . . . become part of a 
nationwide network of distinguished providers through 'Connections Beyond Sight and Sounds' with 
skills that demonstrate the effectiveness of specific interventions" for "students with deaf-blindness 
disabilities" (emphasis in original). technical assistance specialist with 
Connections Beyond Sight and Sound at the 
provided more information about the program and the petitioner's involvement with it: 
Connections is the Maryland Project on deaf-blindness .... Each state and territory in 
the U.S. has a deaf-blind project. Together we further knowledge in the educational 
field of deaf-blindness relative to best practice and research-based interventions for 
children with dual sensory impairment. 
. · .. [The petitioner] has participated in a number of multi-state collaborative training 
initiatives through Connections. These trainings are for the purpose of education and 
dissemination of evidence-based interventions for children with the most significant 
disabilities. · 
did not state that the petitioner participated in developing these interventions. Rather, 
"[ s ]he visited our regional demonstration classroom at the Maryland School for the Blind" and 
"replicated the model from MSB" "in her classroom." This information, therefore, indicates not that 
the petitioner is part of any coordinated national network, but rather that she received local training 
through a federally funded program that has parallels in other states. 
The director denied the petition on December 12, 2012. The director quoted several witness letters 
and acknowledged submission of "[t]he petitioner's academic credentials, evaluations, awards and 
(b)(6)
. . . . 
Page9 
recognitions," but found that the evidence did nor show "how the benefits of her employment will be 
national in scope." The director stated: "The petitioner has not established that Congress intended 
the national interest waiver to serve as a blanket waiver for all teachers," and stated various points 
articulated in NYSDOT. 
On appeal, counsel notes that Congress passed the NCLBA three years after the issuance of 
NYSDOT as a precedent decision, and claims that "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" regarding the waiver claim. Counsel, however, identifies no special legislative or 
regulatory provisions that exempt school teachers from NYSDOT or reduce its impact on them. 
The asserti<;>n that the NCLBA modified or superseded NYSDOT is not persuasive; that legislation 
did not amend section 203(b )(2) of the Act. In contrast, · section 5 of the Nursing Relief for 
Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999, Pub.L. 106-95 (November 12, 1999), specifically amended the 
Immigration and Nationality Act by adding section 203(b)(2)(B)(ii). to create special waiver 
provisions for certain physicians. Because Congress not only can amend the Act to clarify the 
waiver. provisions, but has in fact done so in direct response· to NYSDOT, counsel has not made a 
persuasive claim that the NCLBA indirectly implies a similar legislative change. 
Counsel states that the petitioner "has submitted legal, testimonial as well as documentary evidence 
including logical and practical reasoning that establish the benefit derived by the United States from 
her employment is national in scope." Counsel emphasizes the "national priority goal of closing the 
·achievement gap,'' but cites no evidence to show that the petitioner has produced nationally 
significant results in this regard. instead, counsel repeats the assertion that, as a "highly qualified 
teacher," the petitioner's work is consistent with the stated goal. 
Coimsel asserts that there remains a pressing 
need for educational reform, and quotes a study that 
concluded the Teach For America program "rarely had a positive impact on reading achievement." 
In the same brief, counsel cites statistics regarding the Maryland School Assessment tests, indicating 
that ranked near the bottom" in 2012 and "did not meet-its Reading proficiency AMO 
targets." By 2012, the petitioner had been teaching in for several years. The. district's 
continued low ranking suggests that, even at the local level, the petitioner's efforts have not resulted 
in measurable overall improvements. Counsel does not explain how the petitioner's future work will 
"clos[ e] the achievement gap" when there is no evidence that her past work has done so to any 
significant extent. Counsel then states that "Maryland's headway means that the United States, as a 
whole, is gaining inroads in achieving the NCLB Act goal of closing the achievement gaps in 
Reading, Science and Math proficiency for all American school-childr~n with special needs." The 
statistics provided by counsel indicate that Maryland's progress at the state level has largely been in 
spite, rather than because, of performance. 
Counsel claims that the petitioner "is an effective teacher in raising student achievement in STEM" 
(science, tecluiology, engineering and mathematics), but, in the brief, cites no evidence in support of 
this assertion. Likewise, counsel asserts, without elaboration, that the petitioner "has demonstrated 
that she has a past history of achievement with some degree of influence on the field of special 
(b)(6)
. . . .. 
Page 10 
education as a whole.'; Without evidence ·of specific, identified instances of that in~uence, this 
claim is empty. 
Counsel contends that factors such as "the 'Privacy Act' protecting private individuals" mB.ke it 
"impossible" .to compare the petitioner with other qualified workers. This assertion is tenuous for a 
number of reasons, not least of which is counsel's attempt, elsewhere in this proceeding, to compare 
the petitioner to other qualified workers by declaring her to be so superior that to replace her would 
be a disservice to her students. CoU.nsel 's contention rests on the false assumption that the NYSDOT 
guidelines amount to little more than an item-by-item comparison of an alien's credentials with those 
. I 
ofqualified United States workers. The key provision, however, is that the petitioner must establish 
a record of influence on the field as a whole. To do so does not require a review of other te~chers' 
credentials. 
Counsel contends that, under the No Child Left Behind Act, schools that fail to meet specified 
benchmarks will lose federal funding and be "abolished," thereby putting the teachers out of work, 
and therefore United States teachers have an incentive to waive the labor certification requirement 
for highly qualified teachers. Counsel offers no real-life example of this situation ever happening. 
The bulk of the appellate brief consists of complaints about labor certification and NYSDOT and 
general statements about educational reform. It is within Congress's power to establish a blanket 
waiver for teachers, "highlY'qualified" or otherwise, but contrary to counsel's assertions, that waiver 
does not yet exist. 
As is clear from. a plain reading of the statute, engaging in a profession (such as teaching) does not 
presumptively exempt such professionals from the requirement of a job offer based on national interest. 
Congress has not established any. blanket waiver for teachers. Eligibility for the waiver rests not·on the 
basis of the overall importance of a given profession, but rather 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 b(! in the national interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner.· Section 291 of the ~ct, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
"oRDER: The appeal is dismissed.