dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6823881 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 6, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mathematics teacher, 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 she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and we summarily dismissed the appeal 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that she is eligible 
for a national interest waiver. 
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 motions to reopen and to 
reconsider. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). In addition, a motion to reconsider must (1) 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 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) 
establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time 
of the initial decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) . We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements 
and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
III. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
prior adverse decision. Accordingly, we examine any new facts and arguments to the extent that they 
pertain to our summary dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. 
Although the Petitioner's brief addresses her eligibility for a national interest waiver, the Petitioner 
did not file a motion on the Director's initial denial decision finding her ineligible for that waiver, but 
rather on our summary dismissal of her appeal. Therefore, the merits of the Director's decision, and 
of the underlying petition, are not before us. Rather, the only issue before us is whether we properly 
found that the Petitioner's appeal met the applicable requirements for summary dismissal pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
In relevant part, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that an appeal shall be summarily 
dismissed "when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal." In our decision, we noted that the Petitioner indicated that she would 
submit a brief and/ or additional evidence within 3 0 calendar days of filing the appeal, and that we had 
not received this documentation. We farther stated that the Petitioner's initial Form I-290B, Notice 
of Appeal or Motion, "filing did not contain a statement that specifically identifies an erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision being appealed." 
A. Motion to Reopen 
As we note above, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The Petitioner 
asserts that the attorney who filed her appeal "was not able to meet the deadline for the submission of 
the brief and additional evidences . . . . I supplied my lawyer with brief and additional evidences at 
that time but they seemed to not be submitted." 1 
The Petitioner presents new evidence on motion relating to her claim that she is eligible for a national 
interest waiver. Specifically, she submits photographs of her students, letters of thanks from her 
students and their parents dated June 2019, and a letter confirming her "acceptance into the 2019 
I I Educators' Association Union SuJmer Prograt" She also provides an April 
2018 letter stating that she served as a teacher mentor for a~----~ niversity student intern from 
Fall 2015 until Spring 2016 and her 2019-2020 membership card for the Association for Supervision 
and Curriculum Development. 
Regarding the matter before us, the Petitioner acknowledges in her brief that her attorney did not 
submit a brief or additional evidence, one of the reasons we provided in our summary dismissal as a 
basis for that decision. She does not demonstrate how the evidence provided on motion addresses the 
stated grounds for summary dismissal, and this documentation is not sufficient to demonstrate that our 
findings were in error. 2 Accordingly, while the Petitioner has offered new evidence, this 
1 The Petitioner filed her appeal on November 27, 2017. While she asserts that she supplied her lawyer with a brief and 
additional evidence at that time, she did not provide copies of that documentation to conoborate her claim. 
2 For example, if the Petitioner had shown that an appellate brief was submitted within thirty days after filing her appeal, and 
that we ened by missing or disregarding that brief, then there would be grounds to reopen the proceeding. The Petitioner. 
however, has not done so in this proceeding. 
2 
documentation does not demonstrate that her appeal identified its legal or factual basis, and therefore 
she has not overcome our prior determination. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider as she has not shown that we erred 
in our previous decision based on the record before us on appeal. In addition, the motion to reconsider 
does not establish that our summary dismissal of her appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw, 
regulation, or USCIS policy. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we erred as a matter oflaw or USCIS policy in summarily dismissing 
her appeal, nor has she established new facts relevant to the summary dismissal that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings. Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our 
appellate decision. The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and her underlying petition 
remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3