PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedEB-2 · Motion to reopen & reconsider

Occupation not stated

Other / unclear · decided 2013-08-07 · VSC · AUG072013_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

Decided under the old NYSDOT test, replaced by Matter of Dhanasar on Dec 27, 2016. Useful for background only.

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 director denied the petition on January 23, 2001 concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is the holder of an advanced degree, or equivalent, or is of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. p. 2

The decision in brief

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

Summary sentence

The director denied the petition on January 23, 2001 concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is the holder of an advanced degree, or equivalent, or is of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. See in text

What the AAO decided

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 (2)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Department of Homeland Secur .ity U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Services Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Wa shin~ton. DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · DATE: AUG 0 7 2013 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER FILE: · INRE : Petitioner: · Beneficiary: · PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced

    Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)

    ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

    INSTRUCTIONS :

    Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case.

    This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO.

    Thank you, t-4-- j..Ron Rosenberg

    Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov

    NON-PRECEDENT DECISION

    DISCUSSION: The Director, Vermont Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed as moot.

    The petitioner is a managed health care provider. It seeks to employ the beneficiary permanently in the United States as a technical lead pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2).

    The director denied the petition on January 23, 2001 concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that the beneficiary is the holder of an advanced degree, or equivalent, or is of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The petitioner filed a timely appeal.

    A review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records indicates that the beneficiary of this petition became a United States citizen on Aprill2, 2013.

    While the petitioner has not withdrawn the appeal in this proceeding, it would appear that the beneficiary is presently a United States citizen. Accordingly, the AAO finds that the beneficiary's current status as a United States citizen deprives this appeal of any practical significance. Considerations of prudence warrant the dismissal of the appeal as moot. See Matter of Luis, 22 I&N Dec. 747, 753 (BIA 1999).

    ORDER: The appeal is dismissed as moot.