dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

MATTER OF J-R-P-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 8, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
, PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an elementary school special education teacher, seeks classification as a member ofthe 
professions holding an advanced degree, and 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. See Section 
203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Director, 
Texas Service Center, denied the petition. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on March 18, 2013, 
and subsequent motion to reconsider on November 5, 2013. The Petitioner filed two additional 
motions to reopen and reconsider and. we granted the motions to reopen, dismissed the motions to 
reconsider and affirmed the denial of the petition on April 21, 2014, and August 26, 2014, 
respectively. The Petitioner then filed a motion to reopen. We granted the motion and affirmed the 
denial of the petition on May 12, 2015. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. The 
motion to reopen will be denied, our May 12, 2015, decision will be affirmed, and the petition will 
remain denied. 
As discussed in our previous decisions, a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided 
and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Motions for 
the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for 
rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 
502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a 
proceeding bears a "heavy burden." Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. 
Our most recent decision stated: 1) "the Petitioner's motion did not include any new facts or other 
documentary evidence to. overcome the grounds underlying our previous findings," 2) "[t]he 
[P]etitioner has not shown that the proposed benefits of her work are national in scope," and 3) "the 
[P]etitioner has not established that her past record of achievement is at a level that would justify a 
waiver of the job offer requirement." See Matter of New York State Dep't ofTransp., 22 I&N Dec. 
215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (setting forth several factors that must be considered when 
evaluating a request for a national interest waiver, including whether the proposed benefit will be 
national in scope, and whether a petitioner's past history of achievements indicate that she will serve the 
national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker with the same 
minimum qualifications). 
Matter of J-R-P-
As in her previous motions, rather than address our previous findings, the Petitioner describes her 
personal circumstances. She expresses her interest in continuing "to work for a year or two so that I 
can pay all my debts here in the [United States] before I go home to my country of origin if 
permanent residence is not granted." We have advised the Petitioner in our prior decisions that 
humanitarian concerns cannot establish eligibility for this employment-based immigration benefit. 
· Moreover, a motion seeking to reopen an immigrant petition is not the forum to request authorization 
to work in the United States for a period of one or two years. 
On motion, the Petitioner offers copies of previously submitted documents and recent information 
regarding a nomination for a local, county-level award, evidence of her volunteer activities, and 
other professional development activities. Our previous decisions advised the Petitioner that any 
new exhibits supporting a motion to reopen must still establish her eligibility as of the date of filing, 
in this case May 2, 2012. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 
(Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That 
decision further provides, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), that U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cannot "consider facts that come into being only 
subsequent to the filing of a petition." !d. at 176. Therefore, we cannot consider the Petitioner's 
accomplishments which postdate the filing of the petition. Regardless, none of the new materials 
confirm the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought as they do not show that her work as a 
teacher is national in scope or that her past record of achievement is at a level that would justify a 
waiver of the job offer requirement. 
We affirm our prior decision for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has 
not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of J-R-P-, ID# 14988 (AAO Jan. 8, 2016) 
2