dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

(b)(6)
DATE: NOV 2 5 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: . 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizens~ip and Immigration Services 
Admioistrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 MaSSachiis_etts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529·2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Mel1l_bet o'f the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the hn,rp._igration 
and Nationality Act, 8 u.s.c. § ll53(b)(2) 
. ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRl)CfiONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision, The AAO does not announce new constructions of lirw nor establish agency 
policy through non=ptecedei)t de<;isions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to p~esent new facts for considen1tion, you may fUe . ~ motion to rec~'nsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively; · Any motion must be filed :on a Notice ofApp~al or Motion_ (Fortn I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. ·Please review the Form I-290B instructions 3t 
ht~J)_:(/www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest infonnation on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See a:lso S C.f.R, § 103,5 . .Po not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www .. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON~PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the e!Dploymenhbased immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is ~ow before the AAO on 1:1ppeal. The AAO will dismiss the appeal. 
The peti.tioi)er seeks classification under section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2), a..s a .member of the professions holding the defined equiva.,_lent of an 
advanced degree. The petitioner seeks employment as a high school science special education teacher 
in Baltimore, Maryland. The petitioner taught aL 
from 2005 to 2011, and again beginning in 2012. The petitioner asserts that an , 
exemptiOn from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in tbe national ' 
interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a 
member of the professions holding the equivalent of an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not 
established thM 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. 
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 im.migr(lnts who are 
me:robe.rs. of the professions holding advanced degrees or their eciuivalent or who 
be.cause of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultl.irl:ll or educa..tional interests, or weifare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiyer of Job Offer--' 
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts; professions, or business be sought by an employer , 
in the· United States. · ' 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions with post-· 
baccalaureate expetience equivalent to an advanced degree under the regulation at 8 C..f,R .. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 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 conunittee had "focused on national interest 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT Df;CtSJON ; 
Page 3· 
by increasing the number .and proportion ofvi~~s for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
ecortomically and otherwise .... " S. Rep. No. 55, lOlst Cong., 1st Sess., 11 (1989). 
. ' 
S11pplementary information to regulations implementing the linmigtation Act -of 1990, P.L. 101 ~649, 
104 Stat. 4978, (Nov. 29; 1990), publjshed at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,.60900 (Nov. 29, 1991), states: 
the Service [now U.S. Citizenship and hnmigration Services (USCIS)] believes it 
appropria,te t.o leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly 
an alien seeking to meet the [national int.erest] stail.dard must make a showing 
significantly above that ·necessaty to prove ihe "prospective nationa,l bei;J.efit" [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. 
ln reNew York Stat(} Dept ofTransportation, 22i&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comtn't 1998) 
(NYSDOT), has set forth several factors wbicl;l m.11st be considered when evaluat.ing a request for a 
national interest waiver. Fitst, a petitioner must establish that the alien see~s employment in an area of 
substantial intrinsic merit. /d. at 217. Next, a petitioner must establish that the proposed benefit Will 
be p.ational in scope, /d. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver must establish that the alien will 
serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having 
the same minimum qualifications. /d .. at 217-18. · 
While the nationa,l i_nterest waiver hinges on pro~pective national benefit, the petitioner must establish 
that the alien's past tecordjustifies projections offuture benefit to the na.tiona,l interest. /d. at 219. The 
petitioner's assuranc.e that the alien will, in the future, serve the national inte:rest cannot suffice to 
e~ticiblish prospective national benefit. ·The term "prospective" is ·included here to requite future 
contributions by the alien, ratber than to facilit(lte the entry of 'an alien with no demonstrable prior 
achievements, and whose. benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely Speculative. /d. 
The USCIS regtilation at 8 C.F X. § 204.5(~)(2) deffn.es "exceptional ability" as "a degree of eXpertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given are(l of endeavor. l3y statute, aliens of 
exeeptional ability are generally subject to the job offer/labor certi:fi¢a.tion requirement; they are not 
exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks classit:icl:ltion 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 
ord~narily encol1ntere(l in his or her field of expertise. 
the petitioner filed the Form 1-140 petition on 1anuary 12, 2012. In an accompanying statement, 
counsel stated: · · 
Considering (the petitioner's] more than five (5) years of teaching Science to lih 
Grade Special Education· students in Maryland, she has in her own little 
but noble way be.ert contributing to the national interest of helping improve .the Special 
Education in the United States of America. This fact finds solid support from the 
(b)(6)
Page 4 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
testimonials rendered by her superiors, colle~gues a11d a parent. Further, va,rious 
distinctions, awards and recognitions were granted by 
honoring her signifjcant contributions. 
In addition to [the petitioner's] twelve years (12) of teaching Science to high school 
students, her exceptional musical prowess proved to be her secret weapon in educating 
.. her Specia:J Educ(ltion students more effectively. Aside from capturing the st\ldents' 
attention and igniting their interest to le~rn, sh_e im;pires them to be good citizens of the 
United States of America and become integral part[ s) of the work force In the future. In 
other words, [the petitioner's] musical gift enables her to touch the hearts of her 
Students and make a difference in their persoQal and professional lives in the future. 
The (lforementioned letters from administratorS, teachers, and others contain praise 
for the petitioner's dedication ~d the qu,~ity of her work. Five of the letters contain an identical 
passage, indicating that the petitioner "taught Science to stu,dents with a variety of learning disabilities, 
primarily those who presented _\vith mental retardation (Moil)." The parenthetic~l word ''Moil'' is an 
actonytn for "moder(ltely intellectually limited.;' 
The petitioner submitted copies of evaluations, performance review reports; and certificates. These 
materials documeQted her success as a teacher at but they do not show her impact 
and influence on education outside of tb~t school. 
The -petitioner also submitted certificates, photographs, and recordings as "Evidence of Self­
Petitioner's Exceptional Ability-a_s a Musician.'' The petitioner did not establish the relevance of these 
materials to her work as an educator. The petitioner has sung in the school choir and at school events 
such as graduation ceremonies, but these instances do not amount to itnpact or influence on education, 
providing benefits that are na.tional in scope. · 
In a request for evidence (RFE) dated July 12, 2012, the director instructed the petitionet.;to submit 
docu,rnen_tary evidence to meet the guidelines set forth in NYSDOT. The director acknowledged the 
petitioner's submission of award certificates, and requested further evidence to establish their 
significance. 
\ 
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 
nation(ll-level benefits. 
Even.authors of books, treatises and other academic materials on Special EducatioQ are 
not in_ any standing [sic] to claim tha_t their contributions are national in scope since not 
all special education teachers can be said to utilize their works. 
(b)(6)
Page 5 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Further, the curricula used by each st~te education department in the United States va,ry 
from each other. 
The director cl.id · not require that the petitioner show that she is "a, 'National Special Education 
teacher,''' or that "all special ed1.1cation teachers ... utilize [her] works." National scope is not the 
same as universal reliance on the petitioner's work. 
Counsel's assert_ion th(lt different jurisdictionS use different curricula is not 
a factor in favor of granting 
the waiver. Instead, it serves to emphasize the local nature of the petitioner's impact, as stated in 
NYSDOTs discussion of the "national scope" prong of the national interest test: "while education is in 
tbe national interest, the impact of a single · schooltea_c:her in one elementary school would not be i_n t_he 
national iiJ.terestfor purposes of waiving the job offer requirement of section 203(b)(2)(B) of the Act." 
!d. at 217 n.3. 
Counsel stated: -''it is but harmless to assert that if an NIW [na,tionallnterest waiver] Petition is made 
with premise 011. some prevailing Acts of United States Congress, that by itself renders the proposed 
employment national in scope." All employment-based immigrant Classifications a,re based on 
"prevailing Acts of United States Congress," a,nd so is the statutory job offer requirement. Congress 
cou,ld cre;;tte a blanket waiver through new legislation, and has done so in the past. Section 5 of the_ 
Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999, Pub.L. 106"'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 _ special waiver provisions for cert;;tin physicians. Thus, Congress not only can amend the 
Act to clarify the waiver provisions, but has in fact done so in direct response to NYSDOT. Congress, 
to date, bas not taken similar action with respect to_ teachers. 
Counsel quoted remarks made by then-President George H.W. Bush when he signed the Immigration 
Act ofl 990, which created the national interest waiver: "This bill provides for vital increases for entry 
on the basi_s of ~kills, 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. 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 cited other federal initiatives and legisla,tiOil, foeusing on the No Child Left Behind 
Act 
(NCLBA), Pub.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (Jan. 8, 2002), which prioritized the hiring of "Highly 
Qualified Teachers ." The-NCLBA contains no provision relating to the Qational interest waiver ot 
modifying the immigration provisions already in effect for teachers as members of the professions. 
Counsel, however, asserts that the statute is relevant beca,use it highlights the importance of education, 
and because ''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 educa,ted by 'Highly 
Qualified Teachers."' This assertion includes several lJflSupported assumptions, such as tlm 
assumption that U.S. teachers are, as a class, less qualified than foreign teachers, and that "all [foreign 
teachers] were educated by 'Highly Qualified Teachers."' lbe unsupported assertions of couns~l do 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
P<_tge 6 
not Constitute evidence. See Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BlA 1988); Matter of 
Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1, 3 n.2 (BIA 1983); Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980). . 
Counsel a:sserted ''that retaining is more cost effective than recruiting rtew clients [sic],'' and therefore 
''the most practicable approach" is to allow U.S. employers to continue to employ foreign workers 
~hom they have already hired, rather than replace them with new U.S. workers who require additional 
training. The standard for the waiver of the. job offer requirement · is the national interest, not what 
might be most 
efficient or cost-effective for individual employers. Counsel's proposed standard would 
effectively amount to a blanket waiver fot all foreign workers currently employed in nonimmigrant 
.s.tat11s. · 
Counsel stated: 
[The petitioner] is one of the 59% [of] special educators ih the nation with a Master; s 
degree or equivalent. 
[The petitioner] is one of the 92% [of] special educators with full certification. 
Elsewhere, counsel cited the SPeNSE Study of Personal Needs in Special Education: Key Findings as 
stating: ''Fifty-nine percent of special educators had their Master's degree,'' not "a Master's degree or 
. equivalent" as counsel stated in the above passage. The benefiCiary does not hold a master's degree, 
and therefore this statistic appears to indicate that the petitioner's academic qualifications arelower 
than those held by the majority of workers in her field. The petitioner'.s full certification as a special 
educator. is a credential shared by a substantial majority of others in the field. · 
Counsel Claimed that the labor certification process would pose a ''dilemma" because the petitioner"s 
qualifications exceed the minimlim requirements for the position, and "the employer is required by No 
Child Left Behinci (NCLB) Law ... to employ highly qualified teachers." Counsel did not show that 
these two considerations are incompatible. Section 9101(23) ofthe NCLBA defines the term "highly 
qualified teacher." By the statutory definition, a "highly qualified" school te~cher: 
• has obtained full. State certification as a teacher or passed tbe State teacher licensing 
examin(l.tion, and holds a license to teach in such State; 
• holds at least abachelor's degree; and 
• demonstrates 
competence in the (lcademic subjects h~ or she teaches. 
Section 9101(23)(A)(ii) of the NCLBA further indicates that a teacher i~inot "Highly Qualified" if he 
or she has "had certification or licensure requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or 
provisional basis." Counsel did not explain how the above reqt1irements are incompatible with the 
existing }<:lbor Gertification process. The minimum degree requirement is the same for labor 
certification 
as it is for a highly qualified teacher (i.e., a bachelor's degree). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
Counsel a.sserted that the petitioner possesses intangible, u:nquanti:(ia.ble traits that make her superior to 
likely U.S.. qmdida.tes for her intended position. Cou.nsel stated: "It would be [a] more fruitful learning 
experience to students with 1 highly qualified teacher than having like,: 5 non-highly qualified 
teachers." Counsel cited no source for this assertion, instead stating it as an opinion. Later in the 
statement, counsel referred .back to this opinion as though it were @ iQdependentl y supported finding, 
stating: "il has been dee.med more effective learning experience to students to instea.d h~ve one (5) [sic] 
highly qualified teacher thav having five (5) non-highly qualified mentors." As a generaliz(ltion, this 
unsupported assertion does not establish a bla._nket w~ver for '-'highly qualified teachers'' as the 
NCLBA defines tl)at term.' As a claim Sped.fic to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted no evidence 
that she has been as effe(;tive as five less-qualified teachers. 
Counsel listed several certificates that the petitioner has received for her work. The director, in the 
request for evidence, had specified that the petitioner 
must establish the signjficance of such materials, 
but the. petitioner did not do so. Simply .listing the exhibits does not eStablish their significance. 
Counsel asked that the present petition "be treated iri the sa.me light as a previous I-140 National 
Interest Waiver Self-Petition" for another individual who is "also a teacher in 
'' and which the director approved. While 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c) 
provides that AAO precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS employees in the administration of 
the Act, unpublished service center decisions are not similarly binding. · F:urthermore, counsel has 
fumished no . evidence to establi~h that the facts of the instant petition ate similar . to thos~ in the 
unpublished decision. Although counsel asserted more than once that the present petitioner ta:ught in 
her only teaching experience in the United States has been in 
Baltimore, which is an independent city outside of 
principal of stated: 
[The petitioner] was a tremendous influence for students and did an excellent job in her 
assignment. ... l,n fact, o:ur school assessment scores for (ACt -MSA) exceeded the city 
-and state average .... 
On July 30, 2011 [the petitioner's] teaching contract was tennina.ted by the district due 
to immigration issues. Her working visa expired. By the time that [the petitioner] was 
gone, our school. assessment score in science declined . 
. 
. . [After she] was given a WorkAu:thorization.in . US ... [the petitioner] reapplied to 
the district for a teaching ~ position. For this school year I've reqyested the district to 
rehire [the petitioner] and assign her to Now she is currently 
teaching at to students with severely profound disabilities. 
The petitioner had previously indica.ted tha.t her H-lB nonimmigrant status did not expire until October 
21, 2011, and USCIS records corroborate that,date. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECE.DENT DECISION 
PageS 
The petitioner did not submit the Maryland St~te Assessment (MSA) results to show the extent of the 
improvement and subsequent decline, or1 establish other factors that may have been iQ play. 
Furthennore; the petitioner did not establish that her effect on MSA scores went beyond 
or beyond her specific classes in that school. 
Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act states that aliens of exceptional ability are subject to the job offer 
requirement. The USCIS regulation defines "exceptional ability" as ''a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered'' in a given area of endeavor. Therefore, it cannot 
suffice for the petitioner to establish that she· is better than many other teachers. Tl:Ie statute, 
regulations, and case law do not limit the job offer requirement, including labor certification, only to 
minimally-qualified workers. NYSJ)OT is a binding precedent decision, and cotmsel did not succe.ed in 
constructing an alternative national interest standard more favorable to the petitioner. 
The director denied the petition on April 15, 2013, The director ~cl<nowledged the petitioner's 
evidence, and concluded that the. petitioner had not met the NYSDOT guidelines to establish eligibility 
for the national interest waiver. · : 
On appeal, counsel Gontends: "USCIS erred in giving insufficient weight to the national educational 
interest enunciated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 as the guiding principle rather than the 
·precedent case [NYSDOT] which involved an engineer." NYSDOT, as a published precedent decision, 
is binding on all USCIS employees under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c), anc;l its core guidelines are not limited to 
engineers. In contrast, the. NCLBA is not an immigration statute; it did not '!,mend the Immigration 
and Nationality Act; and it makes no mention of foreign teachers or the national interest waiver. 
Therefore, there is no basis to conclude that the NCLBA supersedes NYSDOT ot, as counsel claims, 
"has preempted the USCIS with respect to the parameters that should guide its determination whether 
a waiver of the job offer requirement based on n;ltional educational interests is warranted." 
Counsel contends th.at a waiver is in order "if it is established that the alien will substantially benefit 
prospectively the national educational interests of the United States." The plain text of section 
:203(b )(2)(A) of the Act, however, states: "Visas shall be made available .... to qualified immigrants 
who ... will substantially benefit prospectively the @,tional , .. educational interests, Or welfare of the 
United States, and whose services ... are sought by an employer in the United States." In this way, 
Congress specified that substantial prospective benefit to the interests of the · United States is not 
sufficient for the waiver; an intending immigrant who offers such benefit must still be ''sought by an 
employer in the United States." The NCLBA did not establish a lower Standard for te;:~.chers. 
Counsel contends that NYSDOT "requires overly burdens~me evidence on the qualification of the seif~ 
petitioner, identical to EB-1 extraordinary requirements when the law ma}5:es it available to those either 
'with an advanced degree' or 'exceptiollCll ability.''' The evidentiary tequirem~nts to ~stablish 
extraordin;:~.ry ability appear at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Those requirements are not "identical" to the 
guidelines in NYSDOT, and ·colJ,Ilsel h~ iden~ified no strong similarities. Concerning counsel's 
(lSsertion that the waiver · is "available to those either 'with an advanced degree' ot 'exceptional 
ability,"' those qualific(}tions make one eligible to apply for the waiver, but do not guarantee the 
approval of that application. 
(b)(6)
/ 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Pag~ 9 
Counsel states: 
Assuming NYSDOT is apposite, the perennial question is what is the standard to be met 
in order that <m NIW petitioner's proposed employment will have n<~,tional-level 
benefit .... 
Our position is that NCLB and the Obama Education Programs have dete_flll_ined the 
National Eduoation<~,l Interests including the qualification of professionals to achieve it. 
I ' 
The opening clause of the quoted passage incorrectly im.plies that NYSDOTs appli~ability is 
debatable. Under 8 C.F,R. § 103.3(c), NYSDOT is binding on all USCIS employees. The NCLI3A and 
related federal initiatives all address the general go(l} of improving education on a national scale; they 
do not establish that one individual teacher contributes toward those goals .on C:l nationally significant 
level._ Counsel asserts that the petitioner's ''proven suc.cess in raising proficiency of her students 
tninscends the classroom and imparts national benefits," but counsel does not elaborate or explain how 
this is so. 
Counsel cites "[t]he mandate for 'flexibility in the adjudication of NIW cases,"' but calls for a_n 
inflexible standard by which every teacher who meets the definition of a "highly qualified teacher" 
should 
receive a national interest waiver. 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner "h~ subiD.ifted overwhelming evidence '' of eligibility, and lists 
several previously submitted eXhibits under the heading "Awwds !ll)d Recognition.'' Some of the 
li_sted exhibits relate to the petitioner's mUsical work. The petitioner has not established that these 
materials are "overWheh:nii1g 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. . . · 
Counsel contends that factors such as "the 'Privacy Act' protecting private individuals" make it 
"impossible" to compare the petitioner With other qualified workers, cmd asserts: ''the USClS-iexas 
Service Center should have presented its own comparable wotket, if there be 8J1Y at all," as a basis for 
comparison against the petitioner. Counsel's contention rests on the incorrect assumption that the 
NYSDOT gujdelines amount to little more than an item-by-item comparison of an alien's credentials 
with those of qualifiec_l l)nited States workers. The key provision in NYSDOT is that the petitioner 
. must establish a record ot'influenoe OIJ the field as a whole. /d. at 219, n.6. To do so does not req·ui're 
an invasive review or comparison of other teachers' credentials. 
Counsel repeats prior assertions, such ~s the claim that the petitioner merits special consideration as 
"one of the 92% [of] special educators with full certification." These assertions predate the denial 
decision and do not rebut the grounds raised in that decision. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
Counsel also states: "U.S. workers in t_he t~aching industry are not as competitive in the job market as 
against their foreign counter-parts who have advanced degree or" equivalent and fully certified." 
Counsel cites no support for this broad and general claim. 
Counsel claims: 
. . 
there is more likelihood than not. as dictated by experience that replacing 'Highly 
Qualified Teachers' with those having only minimum qualification that these federally 
funded schools would fail to meet the high sta,n.dard required under the No Child Left 
Behind (NCLB) Law resulting not only [ill] closure of these schools but loss of work 
for those working in those schools. 
Counsel identifies no "federally funded school" that has dosed as a re·sult of failing to meet NCLBA 
standards. Attributing t_his claim to "experience'' cannot suffi~e in this regard. Also-, COllllsel has not 
shown that awarding the waiver to the petitio11er would prevent school closures on a nationally 
significant scale. 
Congress has established no blanket waiver for teachers based on the overall importance of education; 
eligibility for the waiver rests on the merits of the individu_al alien. The petitioner has not established a 
pa_st 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 contemplates that her influence must be Qational in scope. NYSDOT at 211, n.3. Mote 
specincally, the petitioner "must clearly present a significant benefit to the field of endeavor." /d. at 
218. See also id. at 219, n.6 (the alien must have ''a past history of demonstrable achievement with 
some degree of influence oil the field 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 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._ ba5is of the overall importance of a given profession, such as 
teaching; 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 
ill the national interest of the United States. 
The AAO will dismiss the appeal for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's bur~en to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought Section 291 .of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Oticnde, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.