dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

(b)(6)
DATE: APR 1 5 2015 
IN RE: Pehtioner: 
Beneficiary: 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department ofHomeland 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 
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 find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your·case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
�¥.tnberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. We will dismiss the 
appeal. 
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 with the defined equivalent of an advanced 
degree. The petitioner seeks employment as an elementary special education teacher for 
in Maryland. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from 
the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United 
States. The director found that the petitioner has not established that she qualifies for classification as a 
member of the professions with the equivalent of an advanced degree. The director made no finding 
regarding the application for a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a brief. 
I. Law 
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 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 regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines a "profession" as "one of the occupations listed in 
section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate 
degree or its foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation." Section 
101(a)(32) of the Act defines elementary school teaching as a profession. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i) requires that, to show that the alien is a professional 
holding an advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied by: 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
(A) An official academic record showing that the alien has an United States 
advanced degree or a foreign equivalent degree; or 
(B) An official academic record showing that the alien has a United States 
baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form of 
letters from current or former employer(s) showing that the alien has at least five 
. years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
A U.S. Justice Department notice includes the following discussion of the progressive experience 
requirement: 
"Progressive experience" is not defined by statute or regulation. Its plain meaning 
within the context of EB--2 adjudications is relatively simple: employment experience 
that reveals progress, moves forward, and advances toward increasingly complex or 
responsible duties. In short, progressive experience is demonstrated by advancing 
levels of responsibility and knowledge in the specialty. 
Opportunity to File Untimely Motions to Reconsider Decisions Denying EB-2 Immigrant Visa 
Petitions, 65 Fed. Reg. 41093, 41096 (July 3, 2000). 
II. Facts and Analysis 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker,. on August 22, 2013. An 
accompanying statement indicated that the petitioner has an "equivalent Master's degree and about 
(9) years of dedicated and progressive teaching experience in both the United States and the 
Philippines." 
The petitioner does not claim to hold an advanced degree. The record shows that the petitioner 
received a bachelor's degree from _ in March 2006. A credential evaluation 
indicates that the degree is equivalent to a bachelor's degree from a regionally accredited U.S. 
institution. The petitioner stated she has undertaken online studies for a master's degree from 
but she did not claim to have completed those studies or to have earned that degree. 
Because the petitioner does not hold an actual advanced degree, she must submit the required 
evidence of her past employment, and establish that it was progressive in nature. 
On her resume, the petitioner stated that she had worked as a "shadow teacher" at 
from June 2004 to September 2007 - a period that mostly fell during the petitioner's 
undergraduate study. The petitioner did not receive her teaching certificate until 2006, which 
indicates that the duties of a shadow teacher do not require the credentials of a certified teacher. The 
petitioner submitted no documentation regarding her time as a shadow teacher, as indicated on her 
resume. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of 
meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm 'r 
1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page4 
The petitioner asserts that she began working as a special education teacher at in November 
2007. The submitted letters from officials of part 
of the system, indicating that the petitioner had taught at the school "for the last 5 Y2 years" 
are consistent with that date. The letters do not indicate that the petitioner's experience as a special 
education teacher was progressive. 
In a request for evidence (RFE) issued on November 20, 2013, the director stated that the petitioner 
had not established that she holds an advanced degree or its defined equivalent. The director 
specified that, in the absence of an advanced degree, the petitioner must submit "letters from current 
or former employer(s) showing that [she] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate 
experience in the specialty." The director also requested further evidence of eligibility for the 
national interest waiver of the statutory job offer requirement. 
The petitioner's response included a 26-page brief devoted entirely to the issue of the national 
interest waiver. The brief did not address the issue of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. 
The brief occasionally referenced the petitioner's possession of an "equivalent Master's degree," but 
there is no subsequent elaboration on the point. 
The petitioner submitted a new credential evaluation, showing that she had earned "33 semester 
credit hours ... towards a Master of Arts in Special Education." The evaluation included the 
notation: "Program not completed, thus no degree has been conferred." The remainder of the 
evidence submitted in response to the RFE related to the national interest waiver application. 
The director denied the petition on July 7, 2014, stating that the petitioner "does possess a 
baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent but the evidence does not show that the [petitioner] 
has the progressive qualifying experience to show equivalence to an advanced degree." The director 
added: "Counsel's assertions that the beneficiary possessed an advanced degree are unfounded on 
record. The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 
533, 534 (BIA 1988); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980)." The director 
stated that the submitted employer letters are deficient because they "do· not show that the 
[petitioner's] duties became progressively more complex and advanced," and because they lack 
sufficient detail about the dates of employment and the petitioner's duties. 
The director's decision did not include any finding regarding the national interest waiver application. 
The director explained that, because the petitioner had not established eligibility for the underlying 
immigrant classification, a determination on the waiver application "would be moot." 
On appeal, the petitioner submits a 32-page brief which does not address the stated grounds for 
denial except for the claims in the introductory "Statement of Facts" section that the petitioner holds 
an "equivalent Master's Degree and about nine (9) years of dedicated and progressive teaching 
experience," and therefore "qualifies as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced Degree." 
Citing Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec, at 534 and Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. at 506, the 
director had previously noted that counsel's assertions are not, themselves, evidence that can meet 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
the petitioner's burden of proof. The remainder of the brief concerns the petitioner's application for a 
national interest waiver. Because the director made no initial finding regarding the waiver, this 
discussion is not relevant to the stated grounds for denial. 
The appellate brief neglects the stated ground for denial, and instead discusses, at length, a finding 
that the director did not make. When an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue, that issue is 
abandoned. Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. 
Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 2011 WL 4711885, at *1, *9 (E.D.N. Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (plaintiffs 
claims abandoned when not raised on appeal to the AAO). 
III. Conclusion 
As cited previously, the relevant law and regulations indicate that application for a national interest 
waiver may only be made by a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The petitioner did not claim or 
submit evidence to establish that she is an individual of exceptional ability, instead indicating that she 
holds the equivalent of an advanced degree. Because the petitioner has not earned an advanced 
degree, she cannot qualify for the classification she seeks unless she documents at least five years of 
progressive post-baccalaureate experience. The petitioner's initial submission lacked the necessary 
evidence, and the director issued an RFE to afford her the opportunity to fill this gap in the record. 
The petitioner's response to the RFE did not address this issue, and neither does the brief that the 
petitioner has submitted on appeal. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that her post-baccalaureate 
experience was progressive. The petitioner, on appeal, does not address this finding or show that the 
finding was in error. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to est(;lblish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.