dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Integrative Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-A-H-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 1, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, who works in the field of integrative medicine, 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 and we dismissed the subsequent appeal. The matter is now 
before us on a motion reopen and a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to 
reconsider must 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 users 
policy. Upon filing, a motion must include all initial evidence required by applicable regulations 
and other USCIS instructions. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The Petitioner indicated on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that it was filed as a 
motion to reopen and reconsider and the brief is attached. However, rather than attaching a brief the 
Petitioner requested additional time after the motion filing date to submit a brief. Although the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3(a)(2)(vii) states that a petitioner may be permitted additional time to 
submit a brief or additional evidence to us in connection with an appeal, no such provision applies to 
a motion to reopen or reconsider. The additional evidence must comprise the motion. See 8 C.F.R 
§§ 103.5(a)(2) and (3). The Petitioner has not asserted new facts to be proved in the reopened 
proceeding, and does not cite binding precedent decisions or other legal authority establishing that 
we or the director incorrectly applied the pertinent law or agency policy and that the prior decisions 
were erroneous based on the evidence of record at the time. Therefore, the motions do not satisfy 
applicable requirements. 
Matter ofC-A-H-
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of C-A -H-, ID# 1410120 (AAO Mar. 1, 20 18) 
2