dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Science Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF L-M-C-G-
MOTION ON TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 17,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a high school science teacher, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. See section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is attached to this employment-based second preference immigrant classification. 
See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. We 
thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's submissions and determineq }hat although she established her 
qualifications as "an advanced degree professional and that her proposed work as a high school 
science teacher has substantial merit," she did not show that her proposed employment will be 
national in scope or that she will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an available 
U.S. worker with the same minimum qualifications. See Matter of New York State Dep 't o.fTransp., 
22 I&N Dec. 215, 217-18 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (setting forth several factors that must be 
considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver). Specifically, we found that "the 
record does not indicate that the impact of her own proposed work as a science teacher would offer 
national benefits" and that while she has had a "positive impact.. .on her own students and school 
district," the submitted evidence did not demonstrate "that she has had an influence on the field of 
science or physics education generally." 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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 discoveted 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." 
Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. 
On motion, the Petitioner describes her personal circumstances rather than providing new facts 
relating to her eligibility for this employment-based immigration benefit. As USCIS does not have 
Matter of L-M-C-G-
discretion to ignore binding precedent under 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(c), her eligibility must be determined 
according to the framework set forth in NYSDOT. 
We also note that, in order to properly file a motion, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) 
requires that the motion must be "[a]ccompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of 
the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, 
nature, date, and status 
0 
or result of the proceeding." The Petitioner does not submit the required 
statement on motion. 
For the above stated reasons, the Petitioner's filing does not meet the requirements of a motion to 
reopen and must be denied. 
ORDER: The motion is denied. 
Cite as Matter of L-M-C-G-, ID# 29257 (AAO Oct. 17, 2016) 
2