PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedEB-2 · Appeal

Provider of information and communications technologies

Other / unclear · decided 2023-05-30 · TSC · MAY302023_04B5203

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

The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifications for the requested immigrant visa category or the offered position. See in text

What the AAO decided

Read the full decision (1 page)

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 (1)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: MAY 30, 2023 · In Re: 27032743 · Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Advanced Degree)

    The Petitioner, a provider of information and communications technologies, seeks to permanently employ the Beneficiary as an integration engineer. The petition requests his classification under the second-preference, immigrant visa category as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(A). This category allows a prospective U.S. employer to sponsor a noncitizen for lawful permanent residence to work in a job requiring at least a bachelor's degree followed by five years of progressive experience in the specialty. Id.; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) ( defining the term "advanced degree").

    The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate the Beneficiary's qualifications for the requested immigrant visa category or the offered position. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that it mistakenly selected the wrong visa category on the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, and that the Director should have granted the company's request to amend the category.

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) records show that, after this appeal's filing, USCIS approved another petition by the Petitioner for the Beneficiary. The approved petition is in the immigrant visa category to which the company sought to change this petition and shares the same priority date as this filing.

    Thus, adjudication of this appeal appears to lack practical significance. We will therefore dismiss it as moot. See Matter ofLuis, 22 l&N Dec. 747, 753 (BIA 1999) (stating that, "as a matter ofprudence," administrative tribunals may dismiss appeals and motions as moot).

    ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.