dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law/Technology

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.w., MS2090
washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: DH 2 OFFICE:TEXASSERVlCECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionforAlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degreeor anAlienof ExceptionalAbility Pursuantto Section203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ON BEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOffice in yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson Form1-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion, with a feeof $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbe foundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8C F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled within
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
RonRosenberg
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition. TheAdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) dismissedthepetitioner'sappeal.Thematteris
nowbeforetheAAO onamotionto reopen.TheAAO will dismissthemotion.
Thepetitionerfileda FormI-140petitiononJanuary4,2010,seekingclassificationpursuantto section
203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (theAct),8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asamemberof the
professionsholdinganadvanceddegree.Thepetitionerseeksemploymentaseithera chiefexecutive
officer(CEO)or apatentagent/attomey.Thepetitionerassertsthatanexemptionfromtherequirement
of a job offer, andthusof a laborcertification,is in the nationalinterestof the UnitedStates.The
directordeniedthepetitionon August12,2010,havingfoundthatthepetitionerestablishedeligibility
for classificationasa memberof theprofessionsholdinganadvanceddegree,but not for anational
interestwaiver of the statutoryjob offer requirement.TheAAO dismissedthe petitioner'sappeal
fromthatdecisionon December14,2011.
Any motionto reopena proceedingbeforethe Servicefiled by an applicantor petitioner,mustbe
filed within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reopen,exceptthatfailureto file before
thisperiodexpires,maybeexcusedin thediscretionof the Servicewhereit is demonstratedthatthe
delay was reasonableand was beyond the control of the applicant or petitioner. 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(1)(i).A motionthatdoesnot meetapplicablerequirementsshallbedismissed.8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(4).
Onthecoverpageof its December14,2011dismissalnotice,theAAO advisedthepetitioner:"Please
be awarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat anymotionmustbe filed within 30 daysof the
decisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen."Thepetitionerfiledthemotionon September
28,2012,morethanninemonthsaftertheAAO decisionthatthepetitionerseeksto reopen.
To givecontextto thepetitioner'sexplanationfor thedelayin filing, therefollowsa summaryof the
factsof theproceeding,assetforthin theAAO's dismissalnotice.
Whenthe petitionerfiled the petition, hestatedthat heintendedto work asa CEOwho would "Start
up andmanagea new technologycompany,developinga software latform to deliver and sell on-
demandsoftwar ," to pursuean"invention
" Othermaterials,however,indicatedthat thepetitionerwishedto
work asan attorneypracticing patentlaw. The record showedthat the petitionerwas,at the time of
filing, a law studentwho was not yet eligible to practicelaw. After he filed the petition, the
taabsapae and expressedhis intention to represent
In its dismissalnotice,theAAO stated:
[T]hepetitionersuggestedthathemayservethe nationalinterestasapatentattorney,
eventhoughhe was still a law student. The petitionercannotobtain a national
interestwaivernow,basedon theexpectationthathewill onedayqualify to practice
Page3
law. An applicantor petitionermust establishthat he or she is eligible for the
requestedbenefit at the time of filing the application or petition. 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.2(b)(1).USCIScannotproperlyapprovethe petitionat a futuredateafterthe
petitioneror beneficiarybecomeseligible undera new setof facts. SeeMatter of
Katighak,14I&N Dec.45,49 (Reg'lComm'r 1971).
More fundamentally,the petitioner has not establishedany past history of
demonstrableachievement,eitherasa CEOor asapatentattorney,with somedegree
of influenceon the field asa whole. Hecannothavedoneso,becausewhenhefiled
the petition, he hadneverbeeneithera CEO or a patentattorney. The petitioner
basedhiswaiverapplicationnoton anytrackrecordof success,but on hisconfidence
that hissoftwaredeliverysystemwill eventuallybe successfulonceheintroducesit
to themarket.
In short,theAAO madeit clearthatthepetitionercouldnotusehis2010petitionasa "placeholder"
for a backdatednationalinterestwaiver,basedon work thathewasnot yetqualifiedto do in 2010.
Onemustfirst reacha levelof achievementthatwouldwarrantthenationalinterestwaiver,andthen
file thepetition;onecannotfile thepetitionfirst, ontheexpectationthatonewill eventuallybecome
eligiblefor thewaiver. Theregulationsandcaselaw onthispoint areunambiguous.
Thepetitioneracknowledgesthedelayin filing themotion,butexplainsthat,atthetimeof thedismissal
notice, he was pursuing litigation againstthe U.S. Patentand TrademarkOffice (USPTO). The
petitionerclaimsthattheUSPTOhadunlawfullydeniedhimregistrationasa patentagentonthebasis
of hisimmigrationstatus.(TheDistrictCouitfortheDistrictof Columbiaruledin favorof theUSPTO;
thepetitionerhasappealedtheruling.) Thepetitionerstates:
In December2011,thepartiesof theDistrictCourtcasehadcompletedtheirrespective
summaryjudgmentmotionsandwas awaitingfor [sic] the District Court'sdecision.
Petitionerplannedto file this Motion immediatelyafter the District Court makesa
decision. The District Court, however,did not makea decisionuntil September13,
2012. Becausethe District Court took more than expectedtime to rendera decision,
Petitionersubmitsthatthedelayof this Motion is beyondthecontrolof Petitionerandis
reasonable.
TheAAO did not dismissthe appealsimplybecausethe petitionerwasnot a registeredpatentagent.
Rather,asexplainedin thedismissalnotice,theAAO foundthatthepetitionerhadnotestablishedany
sortoftrack recordeitherasaCEOor asapatentattomey,andUSCISwill not approvenationalinterest
waiversbasedpurelyon speculationaboutwhatthepetitionermightaccomplishonceheisqualifiedto
pursuea given profession. The petitioner'slitigation against is, at best,tangentially
relevantto thematternowunderconsideration.Thetimingof thecourt'sdecisionwascertainlybeyond
the petitioner'scontrol,but the petitionerhasnot shownthat waitingnine monthsfor thatdecision
beforefiling themotionconstitutesareasonabledelay. Thepetitioner'spursuitof litigationagainstthe
doesnot obligeUSCISto keephis proceedingopenwhile the litigationis ongoing. Unless
Page4
USCISdirectsotherwise,thefiling of amotionto reopendoesnotstaytheexecutionof anydecisionin
acase.8 C.F.R.§ 103.S(a)(1)(iv).
TheAAO will dismissthemotiontoreopenasuntimelyfiled.
On October31,2012andagainon December10,2012,the AAO receivedadditionalstatementsand
evidencefrom the petitioner,intendedto supplementthe motion. The regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.3(a)(2)(vii)permitsa petitionerto supplementa previously-filedappeal. Thereis, however,
no parallelregulationto allow a petitionerto supplementa previously-filedmotion. FormI-290B,
Noticeof Appealor Motion,reflectsthis situation. Part2 of thatformgivesthepetitionertheoption
to state:"I amfiling anappeal. My brief and/oradditionalevidencewill besubmittedto the AAO
within 30days." Theformprovidesno similaroption,however,for motions.
The AAO notesthat the supplementalsubmissionsconcernthe furtherprogressof the petitioner's
lawsuitagainst aswell asevidenceof thepetitioner'sadmissionto theMassachusettsbar
onNovember26,2012,two monthsafterthefiling of themotionandalmostthreeyearsaflerthefiling
of the petitionon January4, 2010. Evenif thesematerialshadaccompaniedthe timely filing of a
motion,theydonotestablishthatthedirectorshouldhaveapprovedthepetitionor thattheAAO should
have reversedthe director's decision. The materialsdo not addressthe AAO's key findings.
Admissionto a statebaris notprimafacie evidenceof eligibility for thenationalinterestwaiver,nor
canit retroactivelyshowthatthepetitionerwaseligibleforthewaiverlongbeforethatadmission.
Thepetitioner'suntimelyfiling doesnotmeetallof therequirementsforamotiontoreopen.Therefore,
theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4)requirestheAAO to dismissthemotion.
ORDER: Themotionisdismissed.