dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mathematics Education

(b)(6)
DATE: 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
NAY 0 5 2015 
OFFICE: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:ljwww.uscis.gov/fomis for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
/lft!�:�trative Appeals Office 
www. uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is 
now before us on motion to reopen. We will dismiss the motion. 
The petitioner seeks classification under section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The 
petitioner seeks employment as a middle school mathematics teacher at 
Arizona. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the 
petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 
that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in 
the national interest of the United States. 
In our appellate decision dated November 18, 2014, we stated: 
On the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal, filed on February 27, 2014, the petitioner indicated that 
a brief and/or additional evidence would be forthcoming within thirty days. To date, eight 
months later, careful review of the record reveals no subsequent submission; all other 
documentation in the record predates the issuance of the notice of decision. 
Because the petitioner failed to identify specifically an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of 
fact as a basis for the appeal, we summarily dismissed the appeal pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(1)(v). 
According to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), a motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. Motions for the 
reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for rehearing 
and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 
323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a 
"heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. 
On motion, counsel states: 
I would like to ask for your permission to pardon my failure to submit the Brief and 
supporting evidence within 30 days. Honestly, I could not exactly remember what the reason 
actually was that caused my failure to do so. I have been trying my best to recollect potential 
circumstances but am of the belief that I must have mailed the promised documents within 30 
days, however a diligent search of my records proved futile. I also remember that around 
said 30 day period after filing the Notice of Appeal, my father, who is 88 years of age and 
who had heart surgery last year, suffered internal bleeding and was hospitalized for about a 
month. I happen to be the one taking care of him and my mother in the house of my sister, 
who herself is a dialysis patient and under disability. Although, I do not live with them in 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
NJ, I go [sic] their house regularly and almost everyday when my father was 
brought into the hospital. 
The petitioner's motion is not supported by any documentary evidence to overcome the grounds of our 
decision dated November 18, 2014. In addition, the petitioner does not challenge our finding that she 
did not allege any specific error on the part of the director. Instead, the petitioner, through counsel, 
challenges the merits of the director's national interest waiver determination. Specifically, the petitioner 
asserts that her "proposed employment is national in scope" and that she "warrants waiver of the labor 
certification." 
In this matter, the petitioner did not file a motion on the director's decision to deny the petition. Rather, 
the petitioner filed a motion on our summ ary dismissal of the appeal. The appeal was the petitioner's 
opportunity to contest the director's decision. On the Form I-290B, the petitioner requested an 
additional 30 days to supplement that appeal. When that 30-day period expired, so did the petitioner's 
opportunity to contest the director's decision. With respect to appeals, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.3(a)(2)(vii) provides that "[t]he affected party may make a written request to the [AAQ] for 
additional time to submit a brief. The [AAO] may, for good cause shown, allow the affected :party 
additional time to submit one." The petitioner, however, did not request any additional time beyopd 30 
days in which to submit the appeal brief. 
On motion, we will only consider arguments and evidence relating to the grounds underlying our 
appellate decision. For example, if the petitioner had shown that a brief was timely filed, and that we 
erred by missing or disregarding that brief, then there would be grounds to reopen the proceeding. The 
petitioner has not done so in this proceeding. The petitioner did not file a meaningful appeal; the filing 
of a motion to reopen does not present an opportunity to rectify that oversight by disregarding the 
summary dismissal . The petitioner has not submitted any evidence showing that we should not have 
summarily dismissed the appeal, and we will not, at this late date, entertain the petitioner's untimely 
arguments pertaining to the director's decision dated January 23, 2014. In addition, the petitioner's 
motion does not contain the statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has 
been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding as required by the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) states that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements shall be dismissed." Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed and the previous decisions 
of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed, our appellate decision is affirmed, and the petition 
remains denied.