dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20844134 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 7, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an architect, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner 
had not established that a waiver of the required job offer , and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section291 oftheAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, wewillsummarilydismissthe appeal. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) . 
The Petitioner filed the appeal on December 21, 2020. 1 The extent of the Petitioner's statement of the 
basis for the appeal is: 
Petitioner's 1-140 was erroneously denied. Petitioner is eligible for a National Interest 
Waiver under INA 203(b)(2)(B) , whereas the endeavor has substantial merit and 
national importance, he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, and it 
would be beneficial for the U.S. to waive the requirements of a job offer and labor 
certification. 
The Petitioner indicates that he will "submit my brief and/or additional evidence to the AAO within 
3 0 calendar days of filing the appeal." However, we have not received a brief or other statement that 
specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact in the Director's decision, 
1 We note that the Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider with the Directoron December 
22, 2020. The Director dismissed the combined motion . Because the appeal filing date predates the combined motion 
filing date , the motion decision is not within the scope ofreview for the appeal. 
other than the general assertion that the Petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria for the requested 
benefit. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Therefore, we will summarily dismiss the appeal. See id. 
ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2