Date of Decision: December 10, 2015
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-2 National Interest Waiver (NIW)
Field of Expertise: Special Education
Petitioner Information
Profession: Special Education Teacher
Field: Special Education
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
- Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The petitioner’s employment as a special education teacher was found to be in an area of substantial intrinsic merit.
Criteria Not Met:
- National Scope: The benefits of the petitioner’s work were not considered national in scope. Although education is in the national interest, the impact of a single teacher in one school does not meet the national scope required for a national interest waiver.
- Greater Degree of National Interest: The petitioner did not demonstrate that his contributions would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than an available U.S. worker with the same qualifications.
Key Points from the Decision
Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner seeks to work as a special education teacher, asserting that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer is in the national interest.
Substantial Merit and National Importance:
- Substantial Intrinsic Merit: The petitioner’s role as a special education teacher was acknowledged as significant.
- National Scope: The petitioner’s impact was not considered national in scope as required by the NYSDOT guidelines.
Supporting Evidence:
- Letters of Intent: The petitioner did not provide adequate evidence to demonstrate a successful track record of introducing novel programs nationwide or influencing the field of special education broadly.
- Advisory Letters: The petitioner referenced a proposal submitted to the White House and the Department of Education, but there was no evidence of these institutions planning to implement his program.
Inconsistencies in Proposed Endeavor: The petitioner failed to show that his educational proposals and efforts had a national impact or were acknowledged at a national level.
Supporting Documentation
Letters of Intent:
- The petitioner mentioned submitting his educational proposal to various institutions, but there was no substantial evidence of intent to implement the program.
Business Plan:
- There was a proposal timeline and a description of the petitioner’s initiative to help students with special needs, but the documentation did not demonstrate a significant national impact.
Advisory Letter:
- The petitioner mentioned meetings with educational directors and the submission of proposals, but these did not influence the decision as they occurred after the filing date of the Form I-140.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were denied.
Reasoning: The petitioner did not establish a past record of achievement that justified a waiver of the job offer requirement. The evidence did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s contributions were national in scope or significantly beneficial to the field of special education at a national level.
