dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

MATTER OF T-L-J-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: DEC. 23,2015 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a nurse practitioner, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act)§ 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. We rejected a subsequent 
appeal. The matter is now before us on motions to reopen and reconsider. The motions will be 
denied. 
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 
does not qualify for classification as an alien of exceptional ability, and that she has not established 
that a waiver of a job offer would be in the national interest. We rejected the Petitioner's appeal as 
untimely filed on May 18, 2015. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. The Petitioner asserts that our 
decision rejecting the appeal as untimely was in error and should be reconsidered. A motion to 
reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions or legal citation to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on 
an application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.P.R. § 103,5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider 
contests the correctness of the original decision based on the previous factual record, asopposed to a 
motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. See 
Matter ofCerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399,403 (BIA 1991). 
In order to properly file an appeal, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i) provides that the 
affected party or the attorney or representative of record must submit the complete appeal within 30 
days of service of the mifavorable decision. If the decision was mailed, the appeal must be filed 
within 33 days. See 8 C.P.R.§ 103.8(b). The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 1.2 explains that when the last 
day of a period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period shall run until the end of the 
next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. The date of filing is not the date of 
submission, but the date of actual receipt with the proper signature and the required fee. See 
8 C.P.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i). The regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(l) provides that an appeal 
that is not filed within the time allowed must be rejected as improperly filed. 
Matter ofT-L-J-
The record indicates that the Director issued the unfavorable decision February 10, 2015. The 
Director properly gave notice to the Petitioner that she had 33 days to file the appeal. As the 
Director served the decision by mail, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b) and 8 C.F.R. § 1.2 apply, 
and the appeal should have been filed on or before Monday, March 16, 2015, the next business day 
after the 33rd day of the Director's service of the decision by mail. Neither the Immigration and 
Nationality Act nor the pertinent regulations grant us authority to extend the time limit to file an 
appeal. The Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, was received by USCIS on Tuesday, March 
17, 2015, 35 days after the Director served the decision by mail. Accordingly, as the Form I-290B 
was untimely filed, we rejected the appeal as improperly filed. 
The Petitioner asserts that the mailbox rule "should be applicable" in her case and, therefore, her 
appeal should have been considered filed at the time that it was mailed. Again, the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i) provides that the date of filing is not the date of mailing, but the date of 
actual receipt with the proper signature and the required fee. As the Director's decision was mailed, 
the Petitioner was afforded an additional three days to file the appeal pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.8(b). Furthermore, as the 33rd day of the filing period occurred on a Sunday, the 
Petitioner was permitted to file the appeal on the 34th day, Monday, March 16, 2015. In this 
instance, however, USCIS did not receive the Petitioner's appeal until the 35th day, Tuesday, March 
17, 2015. 
The Petitioner asserts that her "case presents exceptional circumstances" and that the matter should 
be reopened and reconsidered. The Petitioner cites Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976, 984 (BIA 
1997) (holding that the Board's power to reopen or reconsider cases sua sponte is limited to 
exceptional circumstances and is not meant to cure filing defects or circumvent the regulations, 
where enforcing them might result in hardship); Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611 (9th Cir. 2005) 
(holding that the Board abused its discretion in finding that it did not have authority to extend the 
time in which an individual must file his Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an Immigration 
Judge); and Zhong Guang Sun v. US. Dep't of Justice, 421 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that an 
overnight delivery service's failure to timely deliver a Notice of Appeal can constitute an 
extraordinary circumstance excusing an individual's failure to comply with the 30-day time limit for 
filing an appeal). 
However, in Matter of Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (BIA 2006), the BIA, applying the courts' findings 
in Oh and Zhong Guang Sun, held that even if the appeal was delayed by an overnight delivery 
service, the error would not automatically warrant special consideration of the appeal. 
Furthermore, unlike the BIA, whose Practice Manual provides an exception for untimely filings "in 
rare circumstances," we have no similar provision for delays in delivery. Additionally, as the BIA in 
Liadov did not find that an appeal placed with an overnight courier service 48 hours before the filing 
deadline constituted a "rare circumstance," we similarly cannot conclude that an exception is 
warranted in the present matter where the Petitioner placed her appeal with the U.S. Postal Service 
(USPS) on Saturday afternoon expecting a delivery on the following Monday, the final day for 
submission of her appeal. In Liadov, the BIA noted that its Practice Manual warns parties to 
"anticipate all Post Office and courier delays." Like the BIA, "we do not find the fact that delivery 
2 
Matter ofT-L-J-
was a day or 2 past the 'guaranteed' date to be a 'rare' circumstance that would excuse the late 
filing. Such delays are not 'extraordinary' events." Id. at 992. 
With regard to following the regulations concerning filing a timely appeal, it is well settled that the 
regulations which the Service [now USeiS] promulgates have the force and effect of law and are 
binding on the Service. Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 153 (1945); Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 
149, 155 (1923); Matter of A-, 3 I&N Dec. 714 (BIA 1949); cf Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535 
(1959); Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 (1957); United States ex ref. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 
U.S. 260 (1954); Matter of Santos, 19 I&N Dec. 105 (BIA 1984); Matter ofGarcia-Flores, 17 I&N 
Dec. 325 (BIA 1980). See also Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 613 F.2d 1120 (e.A.D.e., 1979) (an agency is bound by its own regulations); Reuters 
Ltd. v. FCC., 781 F.2d 946, (e.A.D.e.,1986) (an agency must adhere to its own rules .and 
regulations; ad hoc departures from those rules, even to achieve laudable aims, cannot be 
sanctioned). Furthermore, an agency is not entitled to deference if it fails to follow its own 
regulations. US. v. Heffner, 420 F.2d 809, (e.A. Md. 1969) (government agency must scrupulously 
observe rules or procedures which it has established and when it fails to do so its action cannot stand 
and courts will strike it down); Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974) (where the rights of individuals 
are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures). 
The legal citations provided by the Petitioner do not demonstrate that our latest decision was based 
on an incorrect application of law, regulation, or users policy. In addition, the motion does not 
establish that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the decision. 
Accordingly, the motion to reconsider is denied. 
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, the Petitioner provides a copy of the USPS shipping label for the I-290B submission that 
reflects "2-day" service with a "Scheduled Delivery Date" of March 16, 2015. In addition, she 
submits a payment receipt indicating a "Scheduled Delivery Day" of March 16, 2015. The 
aforementioned evidence, however, does not establish that USeiS received the Form I-290B within 
the time period permitted by the regulations. The Petitioner must overcome the basis for rejection of 
her untimely appeal before we will revisit the merits of any earlier decision. For example, if the 
Petitioner had submitted evidence demonstrating that the Form I-290B was received by USeiS on or 
before March 16, 2015, and that we erred in rejecting the appeal as untimely, then there would be a 
proper basis for withdrawing our May 2015 decision. The Petitioner has not done so in this proceeding. 
The Petitioner has not submitted any evidence showing that her appeal was timely or that we should not 
have rejected the late appeal. In this matter, the motion to reopen does not include any new facts or 
other documentary evidence to overcome the grounds underlying our previous findings. 
Accordingly, the motion to reopen is denied. 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-L-J-
Even if the appeal had been timely filed, the submitted evidence did not establish the Petitioner's 
eligibility for the national interest waiver, and the appeal would have been dismissed. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability.-
(A) In General. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or ·who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, ·arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer-
(i) ... the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in the 
national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services 
in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) states, in pertinent part: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a 
foreign equivalent degree above the baccalaureate level. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 1 01(a)(32) of the 
Act, as well as an occupation for which a United States Baccalaureate degree or its 
foreign equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry into the occupation. 
II. ISSUES 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not qualify for classification as an alien of exceptional 
ability, and that she had not established that a waiver of a job offer would be in the national interest. 
The Petitioner received a Master of Science in Nursing degree from in 2013. 
According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), 2014-15 
Edition, nurse practitioners must earn at least a master's degree for entry into their occupation. See 
http://www.bls.gov/oohlhealthcare/nurse-anesthetists-nurse-midwives-and-nurse-practitioners.htm, 
4 
Matter ofT-L-J-
accessed on December 17, 2015, copy incorporated into the record of proceedings. Accordingly, as 
the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, the issue of her 
exeptional ability is moot. The remaining issue is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." Matter of New York State 
Dep't ofTransp. (NYSDOT), 22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998), set forth several 
factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, a 
petitioner must establish that she seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Id at 21 t 
Next, a petitioner must demonstrate that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Id Finally, the 
petitioner seeking the waiver must show that she will serve the national interest to a substantially greater 
degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. Id at 217-18. 
The Petitioner has established that her work as a nurse practitioner is in an area of substantial 
intrinsic merit. It remains, then, to determine whether the proposed benefits of the Petitioner's work 
will be national in scope and whether she will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an 
available U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. 
Although the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, the petitioner must 
establish her past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national interest. !d. at 219. The 
petitioner's subjective assurance that she will, in the future, serve the national interest cannot suffice to 
establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used here to require 
future contributions by the petitioner, rather than to facilitate the entry of an individual with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. Id 
Furthermore, eligibility for the waiver must rest with the petitioner's own qualifications rather than 
with the position sought. Assertions regarding the overall importance of a petitioner's area of 
expertise cannot suffice to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. !d. at 220. At issue is 
whether the petitioner's contributions in the field are of such significance that she merits the special 
benefit of a national interest waiver, a benefit separate and distinct from the visa classification she 
seeks. A petitioner must demonstrate a past history of achievement with some degree of influence 
on the field as a whole. !d. at 219, n. 6. 
III. FACTS AND ANALYSIS 
A. National in Scope 
The Petitioner filed the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, on .May 27, 2014. She 
indicated that her work as a nurse practitioner is in the national interest of the United States. The 
second prong of the NYSDOT national interest analysis requires that the benefit arising from the 
Petitioner's work will be national in scope. The Petitioner submitted an October 2014 letter from 
5 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-L-J-
stating: 
Assistant Professor, 
The role of Primary Care Nurse Practitioner [NP] is in very high demand specifically 
related to the Affordable Care Act of 2010. There is growing need for primary care 
in the underserved, poor areas in the U.S. which the AffordaDle Care Act of 2010 
when fully implemented will address. NPs like [the Petitioner] are needed in these 
underserved, poor areas for example New Mexico to alleviate the maldistribution and 
shortage of primary care providers. [The Petitioner] being a woman of color will 
further enhances [sic] her ability to work in this population to meet their health care 
needs. 
mentioned the "shortage of primary care providers" in "underserved, poor areas." 
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) addresses worker shortages through the labor certification 
process, and therefore an asserted shortage alone is not sufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the 
national interest waiver. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218. Furthermore, the Nursing Relief for 
Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999, P.L. 105-95, 113 Stat. 1312 (Nov. 12, 1999) created a 
nonimmigrant classification for nurses in health professional shortage areas. Notably, this act also 
created the national interest waiver for physicians serving in underserved areas. The act did not, 
however, mention nirrses in the context of the national interest waiver while expressly amending that 
provision for physicians. 
DOL has designated nurses as an occupation in which "there are not sufficient United States workers 
who are able, willing, qualified, and available," defined as Schedule A Group I. 20 C.P.R. 
§ 656.5(a)(2). Employers wishing to hire nurses already undergo an expedited process that bypasses 
the DOL pursuant to 20 C.P.R. § 656.5(a)(2). An employer seeking labor certification for a Schedule 
A occupation may apply directly with USCIS rather than DOL pursuant to 20 C.P.R. § 656.15. 
Therefore, the labor certification process for which the Petitioner seeks a waiver is already expedited 
through the Schedule A, Group I process. The Petitioner has not explained how waiving that process 
is in the national interest. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that providing nursing services in 
her geographic area will translate into benefits for the United States that are national in scope. 
In addition, stated that the Petitioner's ethnicity enhances her ability to work in 
underserved, poor areas. While diversity among health care providers may improve service to 
underserved populations, the Petitioner's ethnicity is not evidence that she has or will make an 
impact on the field of nursing other than to benefit her specific patients, which, while having 
intrinsic merit, is not national in scope. The Petitioner has not shown that her nursing services 
demonstrate prospective benefits on a national level. NYSDOT provides examples of employment 
where the benefits would not be national in scope: 
For instance, pro bono legal services as a whole serve the national interest, but the 
impact of an individual attorney working pro bono would be so attenuated at the 
national level as to be negligible. Similarly, while education is in the national 
6 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-L-J-
interest, the impact of a single schoolteacher in one elementary school would not be 
in the national interest for purposes of waiving the job offer requirement of section 
203(b)(2)(B) ofthe Act. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217, n.3. The Petitioner has not established that her work with patients 
will produce national benefits in the field of nursing. The record does not demonstrate that her 
proposed employment is within a framework that has a national impact, such as the proper 
maintenance of bridges and roads already connected to the national transportation system that was 
the subject of NYSDOT. See NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that the proposed benefits of her work will be national in scope. 
B. Serving the National Interest 
The Petitioner initially submitted documentation pertaining to her exceptional ability as a nurse 
practitioner. For example, the Petitioner provided her Master of Science in Nursing degree, 
Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree, academic transcript from nurse 
practitioner certification from the Maryland Board of Nursing, and membership in the American 
Association of Nurse Practitioners. Academic records, licenses, and professional memberships are 
elements that can contribute toward a finding of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A), (C), and (E), respectively. However, in this matter, the Petitioner must also 
demonstrate eligibility for the additional benefit of the national interest waiver. 
We note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. Pursuant to 
section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act, aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job 
offer/labor certification requirement; they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 218, 222. Therefore, whether a given individual seeks classification as an 
alien of exceptional ability or as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, that 
individual cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise significantly above 
that ordinarily encountered in her field of expertise. The national interest waiver is an additional 
benefit, separate from the classification sought, and therefore eligibility for the underlying 
classification does not demonstrate eligibility for the additional benefit of the waiver. Without 
evidence showing that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole, we cannot conclude 
that she has demonstrated eligibility for the national interest waiver. See id,. at 219, n. 6. 
The Petitioner provided various reference letters discussing her activities in the field. For example, 
Vice President for Student Affairs at stated: 
[The Petitioner] was a dedicated student and during her Curricular Practical Training 
and her Optional Practical Training she learned effectiveness in delivering high 
quality, lower cost health care services for numerous health care needs. Her work 
with the underprivileged and clients with special needs is admirable. 
7 
(b)(6)
Matter ofT-L~J-
While indicated that the Petitioner's practical training enabled her to effectively deliver 
quality service to her underprivileged patients and special needs clients, there is no documentary 
evidence showing that Petitioner's work has influenced the nursing field as a whole or has otherwise 
affected the field at a level that would justify a waiver of the job offer requirement. 
an adjunct faculty at asserted that health care providers "like [the 
Petitioner] are needed in [the] U.S. and will potentially make ground-breaking contributions to 
reducing health care cost which is a national interest," but there is no evidence demonstrating that 
the Petitioner's work has already had such an effect or has otherwise affected the field as a whole. 
Speculation about possible future impact of the Petitioner's work does not establish that she had 
already influenced the field at the time of filing. Eligibility must be established at the time of filing. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). In 
addition, mentioned the. importance of the nurse practitioner profession and the "unequal 
distribution ofhealth care services in the United States." General statements regarding the importance 
of a given field of endeavor, or the urgency of an issue facing the United States, cannot by 
themselves establish that an individual benefits the national interest by 
virtue of engaging in the 
field. NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 217. Such information addresses only the "substantial intrinsic 
merit" prong of NYSDOTs national interest test. We do not dispute the importance ofhaving qualified 
nurse practitioners working in our nation's healthcare facilities. At issue in this matter, however, is 
whether the Petitioner's individual contributions in the field are of such significance that she merits 
the special benefit of a national interest waiver. 
a nurse practitioner at 
colleges and universities in Maryland, stated: 
and a clinical preceptor for several 
During her studies and clinical practice here with me at [the 
Petitioner] had the opportunity to work and learn to provide professional services to 
the underprivileged and clients with special needs that need either short-term or long­
term care of a skilled and caring practitioner. [The Petitioner] was able to bridge the 
gap and became an integral part of the health care team at our facility. She advanced 
from working one on one to working with and being responsible for an entire unit in 
the facility. [The Petitioner] was 
able to become the gatekeeper of the services for the 
patient population she was responsible for. 
Although described the Petitioner's work serving the patients at 
she did not explain how the Petitioner's activities have had a wider impact outside of the facilitY or 
have otherwise affected the field as a whole. In addition, Medical Director the 
Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program at the 
asserted that the Petitioner "has the necessary professionalism and academic competence for 
success in her field of practice," but did not provide specific examples of how the Petitioner's work 
has influenced the field of nursing as a whole. 
The Petitioner submitted letters of varying probative value. We have addressed the specific assertions 
above. Generalized conclusory assertions that do not identify specific contributions or their impact in 
8 
Matter ofT-L-J-
the field have little probative value. See 1756, Inc. v. US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.D.C. 
1990) (holding that an agency need not credit conclusory assertions in immigration benefits 
adjudications). In addition, uncorroborated assertions are insufficient. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 
F.Supp.3d 126, 134-35 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding USCIS' decision to give limited weight to 
uncorroborated assertions from practitioners in the field); Matter of Caron lnt 'I, Inc., 19 I&N Dec. 
791, 795 (Comm'r 1988) (holding that an agency "may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements ... submitted in evidence as expert testimony," but is ultimately responsible for making 
the final determination regarding an individual's eligibility for the benefit sought and "is not 
required to accept or may give less weight" to evidence that is "in any way questionable"). The 
submission of reference letters supporting the petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; 
users may evaluate the content of those letters as to whether they support the petitioner's 
eligibility. !d. See also Matter of V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500, n.2 (BIA 2008) (noting that expert 
opinion testimony does not purport to be evidence as to "fact"). As the submitted reference letters 
did not establish that the Petitioner's work has influenced the field as a whole, they do not 
demonstrate her eligibility for the national interest waiver. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Considering the letters and other evidence in the aggregate, the record does not establish that the 
benefits of the Petitioner's work are national in scope, that she has influenced the field as a whole, or 
that she will otherwise serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an 
available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. A plain reading of the statute indicates 
that it was not the intent of Congress that every advanced degree professional or alien of exceptional 
ability should be exempt from the requirement of a job offer based on national interest. The Petitioner 
has not shown that her past record of achievement is at a level sufficient to waive the job offer 
requirement which, by law, normally attaches to the visa classification sought. Although the 
Petitioner need not demonstrate notoriety on the scale of national acclaim, she must have "a past 
history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole." See 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the Petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the 
national interest of the United States. 
As the evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does riot overcome the grounds underlying 
our previous decision, and the motion to reconsider is not supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions or legal citations that demonstrate our latest decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or USCIS policy, the motions are denied. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden 
to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
9 
Matter ofT-L-J-
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofT-L-J-, ID# 14838 (AAO Dec. 23, 2015) 
10