dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 3, 2024 In Re: 31700882 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources consultant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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 classification. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, she did not demonstrate that a waiver 
of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. We 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on the same ground, and the matter is now before us on a combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts to be provided in the reopened 
proceeding, and a motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy to the evidence in 
the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)-(3). We may grant 
motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential 
to change the outcome). 
Our review on motion is limited to reviewing the latest decision in the proceeding. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
As previously discussed, once a pet1t1oner demonstrates eligibility for the underlying EB-2 
classification, we evaluate whether they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in 
the national interest" applying the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
884, 889 (AAO 2016), which requires the petitioner to demonstrate that: (1) their proposed endeavor 
has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) they are well-positioned to advance their 
proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United 
States. 
In our prior decision, which we incorporate here by reference, we concluded that the Petitioner did not 
establish national importance of her proposed endeavor, which she described as a plan to serve the 
U.S. hotel industry through her work as a human resources and talent management consultant for her 
own company. In reaching this conclusion, we noted that neither the endeavor statement nor the 
updated personal statement the Petitioner submitted in response to the request for additional evidence 
(RFE) appeared reliable or sufficient, as both contained identical fuzzy and pixelated signature images 
in rectangular gray boxes that may have been affixed to these documents by any person using a word 
processor. 
Furthermore, after a substantive review of the evidence presented, including the above documents, we 
concluded that the Petitioner provided only generalized information about the hotel industry, 
employment, human resources, and the U.S. economy, and not the specific endeavor she proposed to 
undertake, which is our primary focus in evaluating whether the endeavor has national importance 
required under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. See Id. at 889-90. Consequently, 
we determined that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor of founding a hotel human resources 
consulting company might benefit her as the company owner and operator, her potential clients, and 
those clients' employees and customers, the record did not otherwise establish its national importance. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not contest our determination that the evidence considered in the 
aggregate was insufficient to establish national importance of her proposed undertaking. Instead, she 
asserts that we improperly questioned the authenticity of her signatures on the two documents she 
submitted in response to the RFE. The Petitioner states that in March 2020 USCIS temporarily waived 
the requirement of original signatures due to COVID-19 national emergency and made this exemption 
permanent in July 2022. 1 In support, she submits copies of the respective USCIS announcements. 
We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions concerning the validity of her signature on the two 
documents in question. Nevertheless, we previously determined that even considering the information 
in these documents the preponderance of the evidence was inadequate to show that her proposed 
endeavor had national importance. As the Petitioner does not point to any legal or policy errors in our 
substantive evaluation of the evidence and the ultimate conclusion that it was not sufficient to establish 
her eligibility for the national interest waiver, we have no basis to reexamine and reconsider our prior 
decision dismissing her appeal on this ground. 
Furthermore, as the Petitioner does not submit any additional evidence or information that might 
establish the requisite national importance of her proposed endeavor, she has not overcome our prior 
adverse determination on this issue and reopening the matter would serve no constructive purpose. 
1 Although USCTS waived the requirement of original signatures in 2020, the Petitioner misinterprets the related policy 
guidance, which has been since memorialized in 1 USCIS Policy Manual B.2(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
Pursuant to this guidance, a signature is valid even if the original signature on the document is photocopied, scanned, 
faxed, or similarly reproduced; however, the copy must be of an original document containing an original handwritten 
signature, unless otherwise specified. See generally id. USCIS does not accept signatures created by a typewriter, word 
processor, stamp. auto-pen, or similar device. See generally id. 
2 
In conclusion, we previously determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy her burden of proof to 
establish eligibility for the national interest waiver. The additional evidence the Petitioner submits on 
motion is not sufficient to overcome this determination. The Petitioner also has not shown that we 
erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy in dismissing her appeal, or that our decision was otherwise 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time it was issued. Consequently, 
she has not established that reopening and reconsidering our prior adverse decision is warranted. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3