dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF T-A-Y-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JULY 29,2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a business development manager, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is normally attached to this immigrant classification. See § 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant 
this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the 
national interest to do so. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petition. The Director found that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability, but that she had not established that a waiver of a job offer would 
be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner appealed the matter to us. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, and reaffirmed that 
decision in two motion adjudications. Contrary to the Director's determination, we also found that 
the Petitioner had not established she qualified for the underlying immigrant classification. The 
. matter is now before us on a third motion to reopen. We will deny the motion. 
I. PERTINENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, with the Nebraska Service 
Center. The Director denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner qualified as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, but that she did not 
establish a waiver of the job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, affirming the Director's finding regarding the national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement. We thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's evidence and determined 
that she had not submitted sufficient documentation to support the assertions regarding her past success 
in her field. We found that statements regarding the Petitioner's unique training and skill set are not a 
sufficient basis for a national interest waiver, and that the record did not demonstrate that her work had 
some degree of influence on the field as a whole. In addition, we determined that the Petitioner had not 
shown that she qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability or an advanced degree professional, and 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-A-Y-
we therefore 3Vithdrew the director's finding regarding the Petitioner's qualification for the underlying 
immigrant classification. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reopen and submitted a statement, a new letter of recommendation, and 
a copy of a previously submitted letter. In her statement, the Petitioner contended that our previous 
decision was incorrect, and additionally stated that she had invented and was the first to implement a 
new approach to developing business strategies that combines the methods of two of her professors. In 
support of the motion, the Petitioner provided a copy of a previously submitted letter of 
recommendation, as well as a new, undated letter from the chair and co-founder of a charity initiative. 
The letter stated that the Petitioner had assisted the organization in establishing its mission, vision, 
values and identity, and that her help allowed the organization "to move on much faster, pinpoint the 
partnering entities, set up goals and leverage the talent in the team." 
We dismissed the Petitioner's motion, and found that her new evidence was insufficient to overcome 
our previous decision. We stated that the Petitioner had 
not submitted documentary evidence to support 
the claim that she was the inventor or pioneer of the combined approach described in her statement, or 
to establish its impact on the field of business management development. We also found that the 
Petitioner's motion did not address or overcome our finding that she did not establish eligibility for the 
underlying immigrant classification. Furthermore, we indicated that the Petitioner's arguments that our 
appellate decision was incorrect amounted to a motion to reconsider, "the purpose of which is to contest 
the correctness of the original decision based on the previously established factual record." We stated 
that, even if the Petitioner had filed a motion to reconsider, we would have dismissed that motion as she 
did not establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy. 
The Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen that included a personal statement and a letter from 
president and chief executive officer of indicated 
that the Petitioner developed a business strategy for the company using the Balanced Scorecard 
approach with "unique alterations" including "engaging every single employee of the company and 
sourcing their perspective on solving pressing issues." While attested that the Petitioner 
was the first person to modify the Balanced Scorecard approach to include input from every employee, 
the record did not include documentary evidence to support the claim. Further, even if supported by 
documentary evidence, letter did not explain how the Petitioner's modification has had 
an influence on the field of business development management as a whole. 
Accordingly, we reaffirmed the denial of the petition. The evidence submitted on motion did not 
overcome our finding that the Petitioner had 
not established eligibility for a national interest waiver 
of the job offer requirement. In addition, we a.ffirmed our previous finding that she had not 
established eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification. 
II. MOTION TO REOPEN 
According to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. Motions for the 
reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for rehearing 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-A-Y-
and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 
323 (1992)(citing INS 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. 
In support of her motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits a brief discussing her work experience and 
application of the Balanced Scorecard approach; a letter from 
Professor of Leadership Development, a consulting 
agreement that she executed with in October 2014; and a diploma from 
in Bulgaria with a certified English language translation that identifies the 
Petitioner's academic qualification as a "Master of Public Administration" degree. In her brief, the 
Petitioner repeats arguments previously offered in support of her appeal and earlier motions. She 
does not offer any new facts that would serve as bases for overcoming our latest decision. The 
Petitioner's brief also lists an "Invitation for in among the 
submitted documents, but the motion does not include the invitation or evidence that her 
participation 
in the conference is indicative ofher influence on the field as a whole. 
The letter from mentions that he met the Petitioner when she participated in the 
Program for Leadership Development which h~ taught in 2012, and that that they "have remained in 
contact" since that time. further states: 
I have learned how [the Petitioner] has played a critical role in multiple projects 
focused on developing strategies based on my Balanced Scorecard strategic 
framework. I was pleased to hear about her success working with clients and 
implementing the core principles of the Balanced Scorecard that I taught and continue 
to teach at 
While notes that the Petitioner has utilized his Balanced Scorecard approach, he does not 
indicate that she has developed any original methodologies that are being implemented by other 
business consultants or that have otherwise affected the field as a whole. In addition, 
explains that the Petitioner helped one of her clients "achieve [a] double digit revenue increase in a 
fast changing business environment," and that to his knowledge, the company has hired "more than 
30 new employees in the last 18 months," but he does not provide any specific examples of how the 
. Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole. adds that the Petitioner's work for 
the client "speaks volumes about the impact of her work on the U.S. economy and strengthening the 
business capacity of _companies." The record, however, does not indicate that the benefits of her 
work would extend beyond her business clients such that they will have a national impact. 
The Petitioner's October 2014 consulting agreement with post-dates the filing 
of the petition. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Accordingly, we cannot consider 
any consulting agreements executed after December 17, 2012, the date the petition was filed, as 
evidence to establish the Petitioner's eligibility at the time of filing. Regardless, the record does not 
include evidence demonstrating that the Petitioner's work for the company has influenced the field 
as a whole. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-A-Y-
With regard to her eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification, the Petitioner refers to 
herself on motion as "a holder of an advanced degree, and an alien of exceptional ability." She 
indicates that her 
motion includes a "legalized and notary attested diploma with an apostille from the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of for Master Degree from In 
addition, the Petitioner claims that she has "completed EMBA [Executive Master of Business 
Administration] at but this statement, unsubstantiated by supporting 
evidence, is insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 
158, 165 (Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft ofCalifornia, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). 
Although the Petitioner's motion includes her master of public administration degree from 
in Bulgaria, she has not provided a credential evaluation to establish its equivalency to a 
United States degree. The Petitioner may hold a degree equivalent to a United States master's 
degree, but she has not submitted sufficient evidence to support that conclusion. In addition, the 
Petitioner does not offer any additional evidence for the regulatory criteria required to establish 
status as an individual of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) - (F). We therefore 
affirm our previous finding that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying 
immigrant classification. 
The motion to reopen doe~ not include any new facts or other documentary evidence to overcome 
the grounds underlying our previous findings. Accordingly, the motion to reopen is denied. 
III. CONCLUSION 
On the basis of the documentation submitted, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the 
underlying immigrant classification and that a waiver of a job offer will be in the national interest. 
As the evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome the grounds underlying 
our previous decision, the motion is denied. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden 
to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofT-A-Y-, ID# 17466 (AAO July 29, 2016) 
4