PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
MotionEB-2 · Motion to reopen

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2018-04-03 · NSC · APR032018_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

The Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially approved the petition, but subsequently revoked the approval on the ground that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary had live years of qualifying experience as an operations research analyst, as required by the labor certification. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • The Petitioner filed an appeal, which we dismissed. See in text
  • ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. See in text
  • FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (3)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' · MATTER OF N-USA, INC.

    Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office DATE: APR.3,2018

    MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER The Petitioner, a solar window film business, sought to employ the Beneliciary as an operations research analyst. It requested classilication of the Beneficiary as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree under the second preference immigrant category. Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). This employment-based immigrant classification allows a U.S. employer to sponsor a professional with an advanced degree for lawful permanent resident status.

    The Director of the Nebraska Service Center initially approved the petition, but subsequently revoked the approval on the ground that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary had live years of qualifying experience as an operations research analyst, as required by the labor certification. The Director also invalidated the labor certification based on a linding that the Petitioner and the Beneficiary had misrepresented the Beneticiary's employment experience. The Petitioner filed an appeal, which we dismissed. We concurred with the Director's decision to revoke the approval of the petition and invalidate the labor certification on the grounds stated in his decision.

    The case is now before us on motion to reopen and reconsider tiled by the Beneficiary. A motion may only be filed by an atTected party. See 8 C.F.R. § I03.5(a)(l)(i) (when a motion is filed by an atTected party, the official having jurisdiction may reopen the proceeding or reconsider the prior decision, if proper cause is shown). An affected party means "the person or entity with legal standing in a proceeding. It does not include the beneliciary of a visa petition." 8 C.F.R. § I03.3(a)(l )(iii)(B). In a revocation of an employment-based immigrant visa petition, the affected party is generally the petitioner, the prospective employer that tiled the petition.

    We nole that USCIS recently decided to treat certain "portability-eligible" beneficiaries as affected parties in revocation proceedings. See Maller ofV-S-G-. Inc.• Adopted Decision 2017-06 (AAO Nov. II, 2017). However, the Beneficiary has neither asserted nor established that he is portability-eligible such that he could be considered an affected party in these proceedings. Thus. the Beneficiary lacks standing in this matter.

    As the Benetlciary is not an affected party, the Beneficiary is not entitled to file a motion. Therefore, the motion to reopen and reconsider must be denied.

    Mauer ofN-USA. Inc.

    ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied.

    FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied.

    Cite as Maller olN-USA. Inc., ID# 1147657 (AAO Apr. 3, 2018)