dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe: 18507551 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 20, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager, 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. We dismissed the subsequent appeal the subsequent appeal. The Petitioner now files 
an untimely combined motion to reconsider and reopen the matter. 
Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(2) . We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for 
the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner filed her Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, on December 21, 2017, as 
a foreign national applying for a National Interest Waiver who is a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability . The Director denied the petition on 
September 19, 2019. The Petitioner appealed the decision on October 18, 2019, which we dismissed 
on August 26, 2020 , finding the Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance 
of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework . 1 The Petitioner 
1 See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
then filed an untimely combined motion to reopen and reconsider on November 18, 2020, which was 
rejected and returned to the Petitioner due to being filed on an outdated version of Form I-290B, Notice 
of Appeal or Motion. 2 She then resubmitted her untimely combined motion to reopen and reconsider 
on January 28, 2021. 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner requests we reconsider the Director of the Texas Service Center's decision 
and argues the decision contained erroneous conclusions of law. However, a motion to reconsider 
must be filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(l)(i). Here, the Petitioner's initial rejected motion to reconsider as well as the corrected 
motion to reconsider were filed 30 days after our unfavorable decision. Since the Petitioner has made 
a motion to reconsider 30 days after our unfavorable decision, we will dismiss her motion to reconsider 
the matter. 3 
B. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, the Petitioner requests we consider her untimely motion to reopen due to the effects of the 
COVID-19 pandemic on the world economy and, particularly, the Brazilian tourism industry. Any 
motion to reopen a proceeding before the Service filed by an applicant or petitioner, must be filed 
within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reopen, except that failure to file before this 
period expires, may be excused in the discretion of the Service where it is demonstrated that the delay 
was reasonable and was beyond the control of the applicant or petitioner. 
Here, the Petitioner provided a written affidavit indicating that the COVID-19 pandemic caused a very 
difficult year in 2020 that affected the world economy and the tourism sector in Brazil. However, the 
Petitioner's affidavit did not provide any details regarding why the delays in filing her rejected motion 
to reopen or her corrected motion to reopen were both submitted over 30 days after our unfavorable 
decision and outside of the 60 days allowed by USCIS COVID flexibilities. While the Petitioner's 
affidavit indicates the COVID-19 pandemic created problems for her as a financial manager working 
in Brazil, she did not explain why the pandemic caused her to delay filing her motions to reopen past 
the extended deadline allowed by USCIS COVID flexibilities or that the delay was beyond her control. 
We will therefore deny her motion to reopen the matter. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We will deny the Petitioner's motion to reconsider the matter because she did not file her motion 
within 30 days of the decision she seeks to reconsider. In addition, we will deny her motion to reopen 
the proceeding because her affidavit did not meet the requirements for reopening an untimely motion 
to reopen as a matter of discretion. 
2 The Petitioner was notified her form was rejected on January 6, 2021. 
3 Both of the Petitioner's rejected motion to reconsider and resubmitted motion to reconsider were also filed outside of the 
60 days allowed by USCIS COVID flexibilities. See, USCIS Extends Flexibility for Responding to Agency Requests, 
available at: https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-extends- flexibility- for-responding-to-agency-requests-4 (last 
accessed on September 1, 2021). 
2 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
3