dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biophysics

identifying data deleted to 
prevent clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
pumc COPY 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Offe of Administrative Appeals, MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
File: - Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 07 232 5 1532 AUG 0 3 2010 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Petition: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203@)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153@)(2) 
IN BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised that 
any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
Thank you, 
3per1-y Rhew 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. The 
petitioner filed a subsequent appeal. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the 
appeal on its merits. The matter is now before the AAO on a motion to reopen. The motion will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 4 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. 
The petitioner seeks employment as a faculty associate at the University of Texas Southwestern 
Medical Center (UTSWMC), Dallas. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement 
of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The 
director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. The AAO upheld 
the director's findings. 
On motion, counsel states that the petitioner was never advised that he would need to demonstrate an 
influence in his own field of imaging rather than focusing on the results of the biological research 
performed on imaging equipment that he supported. The director's request for additional evidence, 
however, specifically requested evidence as to how the beneficiary's work had "already significantly 
impacted the fields of physics and biophysics." Matter of Soriano 19 I&N Dec. 764,766 (BIA 1988), 
held that a petitioner may be put on notice of evidentiary requirements by regulations, written notice 
such as a request for additional documentation or a notice of intent to deny, or an oral request at an 
interview. As the petitioner was previously put on notice and provided with a reasonable opportunity to 
provide the required evidence, the evidence submitted on motion will not be considered "new" and will 
not be considered a proper basis for a motion to reopen. 
The petitioner submits a letter discussing work from a colleague that only met the petitioner around 
the time of filing, articles that postdate the filing of the petition, evidence of upcoming presentations, 
emails that postdate the filing of the petition, news article that postdate the filing of the petition and 
an undated intellectual property questionnaire listing the petitioner as one of the individuals who had 
contributed to the conception of the invention. As the questionnaire is undated, the petitioner has not 
established that it predates the filing of the petition. The AAO specifically stated in its decision that 
the petitioner must establish eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. $5 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l. Comm'r. 1971). As such, we will not consider 
evidence of achievements after the date of filing as new evidence that can be considered on motion. 
Rather, such evidence must support a new petition. 
According to 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. According to 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(3), a motion 
to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or Service policy. 
A motion that does not meet the applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5(a)(4). 
Page 3 
Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are 
petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. 
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314,323 (1992)(citing llVS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen 
a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the 
movant has not met that burden. The motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
The petitioner has not filed a proper motion to reopen or reconsider. His request was not accompanied 
by any evidence that can be considered or arguments based on precedent decisions. A request for 
motion must meet the regulatory requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider at the time it isjled; 
no provision exists for the Service to grant an extension in order to await future correspondence that 
may or may not include evidence or arguments. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.