dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Chemical Industry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20203388 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 22, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, 
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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, 
concluding that the Petitioner had not established that he met the second and third prongs under the 
analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec . 884 (AAO 2016). 1 As a result, 
the Director determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
subsequent appeal. The matter is again before us on a motion to reopen. On motion, the Petitioner 
submits a brief and additional evidence. 
Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant a national interest 
waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national' s proposed endeavor has both 
substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive 
the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification . See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-
16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (findingUSCIS' decision to grant or deny a national 
interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
I. ANALYSIS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
1 In announcing this new framework, we vacated our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of 
Transportation , 22 I&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSDOT). 
for the requested immigration benefit. In addition, the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the 
basis for the prior adverse decision. 8 C.F.R. § I 03 .5(a)(l )(i). Accordingly, we examine any new 
facts to the extent that they pertain to our prior dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. 
In our prior decision, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree and that he had established the substantial merit and national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. We then discussed the deficiencies in the evidence submitted 
to establish that he is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
On motion, the Petitioner generally alleges that we incorrectly cited to Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N 
Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988) in order to disregard the Petitioner's "on-going success and impact" and 
submits a copy of an AAO non-precent decision. First, we relied on Soriano for the proposition that 
we would not consider the referenced evidence submitted for the first time on appeal. Second, the 
Petitioner fails to address or even acknowledge our conclusions regarding the evidence in question. 
As we explained in our decision, regarding the articles for which he submitted the reference pages for 
the first time on appeal, they "do not distinguish or highlight the Petitioner's work from the hundreds 
of other papers referenced in the articles." As for the ScienceDaily articles, they "do not mention or 
credit the Petitioner's research, showing that it has somehow impacted the chemical industry or 
otherwise constitutes a record of success in the field." Finally, his Google Scholar citation list "does 
not specify how many, if any, of the citations for each of these individual articles were self-citations 
by him or his co-authors," but regardless, "the Petitioner has not shown that the number of citations 
received by his articles or the level of interest they generated is sufficient to demonstrate that he is 
well positioned to advance his endeavor." In other words, contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, while 
we may have referenced Soriano, we still considered the evidence and determined it insufficient. We 
would also note that if the Petitioner believes that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy, he should have filed a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner also claims that the Director is required to compare the impact of his work with that of 
Dr. Dhanasar and cites to the concept of precedent decisions in support. While we agree thatDhanasar 
is a precedent decision and further acknowledge the concept of precedent decisions and their 
controlling nature, the Petitioner has cited no legal authority for a one-to-one comparison of two 
petitioners operating in different fields with different proposed endeavors. Dhanasar establishes an 
analytical framework to examine national interest waiver cases, but it does not mandate, or even 
suggest, that a side-by-side comparison ofindividual petitioners and endeavors is required. Moreover, 
and as explained above, a motion to reconsider, and not a motion to reopen, addresses the incorrect 
application of law or policy. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits a copy of an off er letter to be a "Data Reviewer" and information 
about the employing company. Notably, the letter does not include any job duties or additional 
inf ormation about the position. Without more, the Petitioner has not established how the proffered 
position I) relates to his proposed endeavor or 2) sufficiently demonstrates that he is well positioned 
to advance his proposed endeavor such that we may conclude that he meets this criterion. 
2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not provided any new evidence on motion to overcome our prior conclusions and 
establish that he qualifies for a national interest waiver. Therefore, he has not met the requirements for 
a motion to reopen. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3