PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
RemandedNational Interest Waiver · Appeal

Boxing coach

Arts, media & sports · decided 2023-12-06 · NSC · DEC062023_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

Upon de novo review, we will remand the matter for further consideration and the entry of a new decision. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for the inclusion of the missing record materials and further consideration. 1 1 The Director's decision did not consider the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. See in text
  • ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. See in text
  • The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 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 (4)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: DEC. 06, 2023 · In Re: 28538130 · Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

    The Petitioner, a boxing coach, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner merits, as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.

    The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will remand the matter for further consideration and the entry of a new decision.

    At this time, we are unable to address the merits of this case because the record is incomplete. The record reflects that the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE) on August 10, 2022. While the Director acknowledged in the underlying decision that the Petitioner submitted a timely response to the RFE, the Petitioner's original response has not been incorporated into the record ofproceeding. We cannot determine whether the Director considered the full RFE response, nor can we base our own decision in this case on an incomplete record.

    The Director bears the responsibility of ensuring that the record is complete and contains all evidence that has been submitted by a petitioner or considered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in reaching its decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); cf. Matter of Gibson, 16 I&N Dec. 58, 59 (BIA 1976). Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for the inclusion of the missing record materials and further consideration. 1 1 The Director's decision did not consider the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability. On remand, the Director should consider whether the Petitioner qualifies for the underlying classification and provide an analysis when issuing the new decision.

    ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.