PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
MotionNational Interest Waiver · Motion to reopen

Entrepreneur

Business & finance · decided 2025-04-17 · SCOPS · APR172025_02B5203

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
    The Director's denial rested on this
    The Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that he was eligible for EB-2 classification or a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. p. 1
  • 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 Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that he was eligible for EB-2 classification or a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and a subsequently filed motion to reopen. See in text
  • Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. See in text
  • ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 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 · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · In Re: 37801018 Date: APR. 17, 2025 · Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

    The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2).

    The Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that he was eligible for EB-2 classification or a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and a subsequently filed motion to reopen. The matter is now before us again on a second motion to reopen.

    The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion.

    A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome).

    On motion, the Petitioner submits two new.--d_o_c_u_m_e_n_t_s_ti_ ·tl_e_d_'......______________ --1

    I' and' t' He also resubmits a letter written by Professor at the ! IThe Petitioner asserts that these documents, along with previously submitted evidence, establishes he is a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and that he merits a national interest waiver.

    The Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish reopening is warranted in this case. The documents submitted do not overcome the deficiencies in the evidence discussed in our prior decision. As we previously stated, the record lacks evidence of an official academic record, such as a diploma p. 2 I or transcript, establishing the Petitioner's completion of the Master of Science degree program. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). While the Petitioner contends that he provided a "di~itally signed digital diploma" and that Professor! lletter "clearly establishes" a degree from the is equivalent to those granted by U.S. accredited institutions, the record does not reflect that these documents are official academic records. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i). The Petitioner also has not addressed, and the documents submitted on motion do not overcome, the concerns previously noted with regard to his academic evaluation and the U.S. equivalency of his foreign degree.

    Accordingly, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Based on the record, the motion must be dismissed.

    ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.