PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedNational Interest Waiver · Appeal

Sales division manager and technical advisor

Business & finance · decided 2025-06-16 · SCOPS · JUN162025_01B5203

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

Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, was merited upon application of the analytical framework we first explicated in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal but subsequently reopened on our own motion. See in text
  • Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. See in text
  • Because the Petitioner did not respond to our request within the time permitted, we will dismiss the appeal as abandoned. ORDER: The appeal 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
    Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · In Re: 36498145 Date: JUNE 16, 2025 · Appeal of Service Center Operations (SCOPS) Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

    The Petitioner, a sales division manager and technical advisor, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this employment based second preference (EB-2) classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4tb 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, Third, and D.C. Circuit Courts in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).

    Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, was merited upon application of the analytical framework we first explicated in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal but subsequently reopened on our own motion. Consequently, the 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 ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

    On April 25, 2025, we issued a notice of intent to dismiss (NOID) the appeal. We instructed the Petitioner to substantively respond to the NOID or request withdrawal of the appeal if they desired to no longer proceed with the appeal.

    The NOID informed the Petitioner it had 33 days during which to respond to our notice. However, the Petitioner did not respond to the notice within the allotted timeframe. We may deny a benefit request as abandoned, deny it based on the record, or deny it for both reasons if a petitioner does not respond to a NOID by the required date. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(13)(i). Because the Petitioner did not respond to our request within the time permitted, we will dismiss the appeal as abandoned. p. 2 ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.