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

Nurse

Clinical & health · decided 2025-01-10 · TSC · JAN102025_03B5203

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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • We withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for a new decision which addresses the Petitioner's combined motions statement, and the additional evidence submitted. 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  • ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn.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 (5)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: JAN. 10, 2025 · In Re: 34031996 · Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

    The Petitioner, a nurse, 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 record establishes that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but does not establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The Petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider with the Texas Service Center. The motions were dismissed, and matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 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 withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis.

    The Director dismissed the combined motions based on 8 C.F.R. §103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), stating that the Petitioner's combined motions were not accompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding. However, the Director did not provide an analysis of the Petitioner's brief or of the new evidence that she submitted. Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director's latest decision and remand the matter for a new decision addressing the merits of the Petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider.

    Conclusion

    We withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for a new decision which addresses the Petitioner's combined motions statement, and the additional evidence submitted. If the case meets the requirements for the motion to reconsider, the Director should determine if the Petitioner has p. 2 established eligibility for the underlying classification and for a national interest waiver and to enter a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the determination prior to issuing a 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.