dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 13, 2024 In Re: 35406956 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an international marketing innovation executive, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification, 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 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding 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 summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us 
on motion to reconsider. 
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. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may 
grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In our August 2024 summary dismissal decision, we stated that the Petitioner's appeal did not identify 
specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision. Further, 
while the Petitioner indicated that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to the AAO 
within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal, the record did not show that the AAO received those 
materials within that period. Instead, the Petitioner's motion indicates that its appeal brief was 
incorrectly sent to Tempe, Arizona rather than the AAO. Any appeal brief and/or evidence submitted 
after filing the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, must be sent directly to the AAO as required 
by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(viii) and the filing instructions for the Form I-290B. 
Because the AAO did not receive the appeal brief, and the Petitioner's appellate submission did not 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, we summarily dismissed 
the appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On motion, the Petitioner presents a copy of its April 2024 appeal brief and a FedEx tracking receipt 
showing that the brief was incorrectly sent to Tempe, Arizona rather than the AAO. 1 The Petitioner 
asks that we consider the arguments presented in its legal brief challenging the Director's March 2024 
decision. 
The only decision properly before us on motion is our August 2024 appellate decision, and not the 
Director's March 2024 denial of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i), (ii), requiring that motions 
pertain to "the prior decision" or "the latest decision," which in this case is our August 2024 decision. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that the information pertaining to where to submit 
an appeal brief and/or evidence after filing the Form I-290B was confusing, as noted the requirements 
regarding the submission of such documents are clearly stated in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(viii) and the filing instructions for the Form I-290B. Because the Petitioner did not 
follow the form's instructions regarding where to submit the appeal brief: we conclude that our 
decision to summarily dismiss the appeal was a correct one. In other words, our determination that 
the record lacked an appeal brief was correct. The Petitioner therefore has not demonstrated that our 
summary dismissal decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy and that 
our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 
The Petitioner has not shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy. Consequently, we 
have no basis for reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 The tracking receipt shows a delivery date of May 3, 2024. 
2