dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

(b)(6)
DATE: · APR 2' 1 2014 
JNRE : Petitioner : 
Beneficiary : 
U.S. Department of flomeland 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: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
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 ://w,>nv.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, 
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 Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner's appeal from that 
decision, as well as a subsequent motion to reconsider. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion 
to reopen and a motion to reconsider. The AAO will grant the motion to reopen, dismiss the motion to 
reconsider and affirm the denial of the petition. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140 petition on May 2, 2012, seeking 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 at 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 denied the petition on October 27, 2012, having 
found 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. The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal from 
that decision on March 18, 2013. The AAO then dismissed the petitioner's motion to reconsider on 
November 5, 2013, because that filing did not meet the requirements of such a motion. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish 
that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition must, when 
filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
In her first motion, the petitioner did not clr:im that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or users policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of 
record at the time of the initial decision. Instead, she asked to remain in the United States "for the 
next 3 years" for various family-related reasons. In dismissing that motion, the AAO stated: 
[T]he petitioner does not contest the decision or allege any error of fact or law. Instead, 
the petitioner seeks favorable treatment based on family considerations. There is no 
provision of law or regulation to allow reconsideration on this basis. The national 
interest waiver is not a humanitarian provision, and neither is the motion to reconsider. 
The petitioner 's stated desire to remain in the United States is not grounds for approval 
of the petition, or a basis to reconsider the: prior decision. 
The petitioner requests that, if she and her family cannot remain permanently in the 
United States, they should at least be able to stay long enough for her adult daughters 
(born in 1991 and 1992, respectively) to complete their studies. This is not the benefit 
that the petitioner sought when she filed the employment-based immigrant petition. 
There exists no mechanism whereby USCIS can convert the petitioner's denied 
immigrant petition into an unspecified status for her daughters. The denial of the 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
present petltwn does not prohibit the petitioner and her daughters from seeking 
immigrant or nonimmigrant status through other means. 
On motion, the petitioner does not identify any errors of fact or law in the AAO's decision on her 
previous motion. Because the motion does not establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy, and does not establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision, the motion does not meet the requirements of a 
motion to reconsider and must be dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(3), (4). 
The petitioner makes new claims, submits a<iditional evidence, and seeks to revisit the underlying 
petition. The new evidence qualifies the motion as a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In a new statement submitted with the second motion, the petitioner states that a "special situation" 
applies, because her "family and relatives back in the Philippines are victims of the recent devastation 
brought by the 4.2 earthquake in Bohol and Typhoon Haiyan in the Leyte provinces." The petitioner 
states: "I am not directly a victim of these calamities but ... my family now will temporarily yet 
indefinitely not have a home to go back to." The petitioner also asserts that, of all her relatives, she is 
"the most equipped to help them rebuild their livelihood and homes." 
The petitioner submits a printout of a page frorn USC IS's web site, entitled "USC IS Reminds Filipino 
Nationals Impacted by Typhoon Haiyan of Available Immigration Relief Measures." The page listed 
seven such measures, including "Expedited processing of immigrant petitions for immediate relatives 
of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents" and "Extension of certain grants of parole made by 
USCIS." The page also provided instructions on how to obtain more information. The web page did 
not indicate that previously denied employment-based petitions such as this would be reopened, 
reconsidered, or approved as a result of the natural disasters in the Philippines. 
The petitioner shows that she and several relatives have obtained employment authorization documents 
from USCIS. The petitioner documents her family's employment activities and academic 
achievements, and asserts that her "family is not a burden to the US economy," and that she "helps 
improve the U.S. economy and improve[s] v1orking conditions of the U.S. through filing of taxes 
annually." The director did not deny the petition because of a perception that the petitioner and/or her 
family would be a burden on the U.S. economy. 
The petitioner seeks an immigrant classification that ordinarily requires a job offer from a U.S. 
employer and a labor certification approved by the U.S. Department of Labor, even when the United 
States would substantially benefit prospectively from her employment. See section 203(b)(2)(A) of the 
Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(4)(i). The petitioner seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement under section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. More information about the requirements for the 
waiver appears in a published USCIS precedent decision, In reNew York State Dep 't a,( Transportation 
(NYSD01), 22 I&N Dec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Cc:;Lm'r 1998). The AAO's March 18, 2013 decision, 
dismissing the petitioner's appeal, described they key factors in that precedent decision. The assertion 
that the petitioner and her family will continue to work and pay taxes does not establish that it is in the 
national interest to waive the job offer/labor certification requirement that, by law, normally applies to 
the immigrant classification that she has chosen to seek. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENTDECmiON 
Page 4 
The assertion that is most relevant to the petition is the petitioner's claim that her "special education 
position has directly contributed to a hard-to-staff school [and] thus helps improve U.S. Title 1 
schools['] improvement." 1 The petitioner cites studies showing high turnover rate at such schools, and 
statistics relating to the Title I status of ' 
The March 18, 2013 appellate decision discussed the petitioner's claim that teachers at disadvantaged 
schools ought to qualify for the national interest waiver. That decision indicated that the petitioner had 
not shown that teachers in her district "are collectively entitled to a blanket waiver of the job 
offer/labor certification requirement." The petitioner, on motion, does not address or rebut the 
conclusions reached in that discussion. Instead, the petitioner presents a variation of the same claim, 
indicating that she should receive a national int t::r e~;t waiver because her school has difficulty recruiting 
and retaining teachers. The labor certification process that the petitioner seeks to waive already takes 
local shortages into account. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. 218. 
The petitioner's submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. The regulation 
at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(4) therefore requires the dismissal of the motion. The petitioner has submitted 
new evidence, qualifying the filing as a motion to reopen, but the newly submitted evidence does not 
establish the petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. The denial of the petition is affirmed. 
1 
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 630 l et seq., concerns schools with high 
numbers of disadvantaged children.