dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 7, 2024 In Re: 30390646 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial controller, 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. 
§ l l 53(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 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. See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. 
Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
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 the Petitioner 
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 a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on motion 
to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, and in an accompanying 
brief, that the current submission is an appeal of our decision to dismiss the prior appeal. However, 
the regulations do not provide for appeals of appeals. See generally 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3. The Petitioner 
also asserts, "The purpose of this appeal is to kindly request the AAO to reconsider the non-precedent 
decision ... for my case." The Petitioner does not identify a relevant law or policy that we may have 
misapplied; therefore, the submission does not satisfy the prima facie elements of a motion to 
reconsider, in the alternative. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) (requiring a motion to reconsider to establish 
that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy and that the decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision). Because the 
current submission cannot be an appeal of an appeal, and because it does not satisfy the prima facie 
elements of a motion to reconsider, in the alternative, we consider it to be a motion to reopen, as 
described at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter o_f Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a copy of a list he describes as "the 2023 conditional ... payroll 
report" for his employer. The Petitioner asserts the list indicates his employer "has hired a total of 45 
U.S.-based employees in Texas during 2022 and 2023, with an average monthly cost of USD 675 
thousand." The Petitioner further states that this "feat would be unattainable without rigorous budget 
control by [him and his] finance team." The Petitioner also submits a copy of a list he asserts 
demonstrates "engagement with 80 U.S. vendors including hundreds of employees ... with a total 
cost of USD 188 million since October 2022, [which] underscores the significant economic impact 
generated by my role." 
Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, the list of individuals does not establish that his employer-or 
any employer-has hired any of the 45 workers it itemizes, or the location where any of the individuals 
work. Instead, the single-page list provides the names of individuals, corresponding position titles, 
either the word "employee" or "contractor," and a corresponding "monthly cost." The list does not 
establish that an employer-employee relationship exists between any of those individuals and any 
entity. Moreover, the list does not clarify whether "monthly cost" means wages paid to the 
corresponding individual, as opposed to the cost of providing a workspace for the individual on a 
monthly basis, or any other possible meaning of "monthly cost." 
Relatedly, the document the Petitioner describes as a list of vendors does not establish that the 
Petitioner or his employer has "engage[ d] with 80 U.S. vendors," the number of workers those vendors 
may employ, and the revenue this generalized "engagement" may have generated, as the Petitioner 
asserts. Instead, the one-page list provides apparent entity names under the heading of "Row Labels" 
and series of numbers under the heading of "Sum of Net." The list does not indicate that the numbers 
represent dollar amounts and, even if it did, the significance of the series of numbers is not apparent. 
Setting aside the substantive deficiencies discussed above, neither list indicates who created them, 
how the author(s) had personal knowledge of the information described in the lists, the purpose for 
which the lists were created, or other elements that may authenticate them. Although the lists include 
the initials of the Petitioner's employer in the bottom margin, they do not otherwise bear indicia that 
they originated within that company and, thus, are authentic representations of that company's 
information. Moreover, the purported employee and contractor list is typed in a serif font, whereas 
the purported vendor list is typed in a sans-serif font, with other formatting inconsistencies that do not 
support the conclusion that the lists belong to the same system of record keeping. These issues cast 
doubt on the veracity of the lists, which undermines their reliability and sufficiency even further. See 
Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988) (providing that doubt cast on any aspect of a 
petitioner's proof may undermine the reliability and sufficiency of evidence offered in support of the 
visa petition). 
2 
We note that, on motion, the Petitioner also reiterates information already in the record regarding his 
employment history, and generalized information regarding financial management and the oil and gas 
industry. However, a motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary 
evidence, rather than reiterate information already in the record. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Accordingly, 
we need not farther discuss the information already in the record, which we addressed in our decision 
dismissing the appeal. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not provided a new, probative fact to establish that we erred in 
dismissing the appeal. Because the Petitioner has not established a new fact that would warrant 
reopening of the proceeding, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3