PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
RemandedEB-2 · Appeal

International SAP functional analyst

Business & finance · decided 2023-03-02 · NSC · MAR022023_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

Upondenovoreview, 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

  • Because the Director appears to have mistakenly adjudicated the petition as one filed on behalf of an advanced degree professional, instead of considering the Beneficiary's qualifications as a noncitizen of exceptional ability in business, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision. 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  • ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn.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 · In Re: 25690847 · Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: MAR. 02, 2023 · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Exceptional Ability)

    The Petitioner seeks to employ the Beneficiary as a "International SAP Functional Analyst," and requests his classification as an individual of exceptional ability in business under the second preference immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act); 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The employment-based "EB-2" immigrant classification makes an immigrant visa available to noncitizens with an advanced degree or with a degree of expertise significantly above that normally encountered in the sciences, arts, or business.

    The Director ofthe Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the labor certification did not support a petition filed on behalf of an individual holding an advanced degree because the minimum qualifications for the position did not require a degree. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3 .

    The Petitioner bears the burden of proof 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 denovo. MatterofChrista's,Inc.,26I&NDec.537,537n.2(AAO2015). Upondenovoreview, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following analysis.

    On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred by failing to consider the evidence and provide a reasoned analysis for its denial under the requested exceptional ability in business classification.

    Part 2 of the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, indicates that the Petitioner checked box 1.d, which corresponds to a request for classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual ofexceptional ability (who is not seeking a waiver ofthe labor certification requirement). However, the Petitioner included a supplemental page to the Form I-140 that specified they were "filing this EB-2 1-140 Petition pursuant to Exceptional Ability regulations." The Petitioner further specified in the supporting documentation that the petition was for an individual ofexceptional ability in business.

    The Director found that "no representations have been made that the beneficiary has exceptional p. 2 ability . . . ," however, the Petitioner asserts the petition was filed on behalf of the Beneficiary as a noncitizen of exceptional ability in business. Because the Director appears to have mistakenly adjudicated the petition as one filed on behalf of an advanced degree professional, instead of considering the Beneficiary's qualifications as a noncitizen of exceptional ability in business, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of 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.