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

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2025-04-23 · TSC · APR232025_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

    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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish her eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • The combined motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(4). See in text
  • ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. See in text
  • FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. See in text

Main reasons given

  • The Petitioner has not submitted new facts that that would warrant reopening of the proceedings and, therefore, has not met the requirements for a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(2). See in text
  • Therefore, she has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § l 03.5(a)(3). See in text
  • The Petitioner's present combined motion to reopen and reconsider-her fifth-likewise does not provide new facts or evidence, nor does it identify any deficiency concerning our previous dismissal. See in text
Show 1 more
  • The Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. 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 (5) AAO finding (4)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · In Re: 37712138 Date: APR. 23, 2025 · Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

    The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the 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. § 1153(b )(2).

    The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish her eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent appeal and four combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us on a fifth combined motion to reopen and reconsider.

    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 combined motion.

    A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence.

    did she establish that our dismissal of the third combined motion was an incorrect application of law or policy at the time it was issued. Accordingly, the fourth combined motion was dismissed. The Petitioner's present combined motion to reopen and reconsider-her fifth-likewise does not provide new facts or evidence, nor does it identify any deficiency concerning our previous dismissal. The Petitioner states, without explanation, that our decision was erroneous, and she reasserts her eligibility by citing previous arguments and resubmitting evidence previously included in the record. The Petitioner has not submitted new facts that that would warrant reopening of the proceedings and, therefore, has not met the requirements for a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(2). The Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, she has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § l 03.5(a)(3). The combined motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § l03.5(a)(4). ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.

    FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.