PetitionLens
All decisions
MotionNational Interest Waiver · Motion to reopen & reconsider

Management consultant entrepreneur

Business & finance · decided 2024-10-01 · TSC · OCT012024_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
    The Director's denial rested on this
    The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that she merits a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 classification. p. 1
  • 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that she merits a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 classification. See in text

What the AAO decided

  • Therefore, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). See in text
  • ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. See in text
  • FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider 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 (6)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · Date: OCT. 1, 2024 · In Re: 34051573 · Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

    The Petitioner, a management consultant entrepreneur, 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 Petitioner did not establish that she merits a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 classification. We dismissed a subsequent appeal as untimely. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider.

    The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions.

    A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal as untimely because the request was filed 40 days after the Director's decision. On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision and submits a receipt for postage of the appeal filing. The Petitioner argues that her appeal was submitted to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) in a timely manner and that submission of a benefit request to USPS is the equivalent of submitting the request to the U.S. government.

    According to the USCIS policy manual, "USCIS considers a benefit request 'received' on the date it is physically or electronically received." 1 USCIS Policy Manual b.6 www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. Regulations require that a benefit be received at the location designated for filing within the allotted p. 2 time period. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). USCIS has not designated USPS as a filing location. Therefore, the Petitioner's assertion that she timely submitted her appeal to USPS is unpersuasive. Moreover, while the Petitioner has established that she purchased postage for delivery on a specific date, she has not provided tracking data showing when the submission was mailed or when it was received for processing by USCIS.

    Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not established eligibility. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).

    ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.

    FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.