dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Sports And Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 20, 2023 In Re: 29259269 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a director of sports and education, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. 
The Acting Director denied the petition on January 4, 2023. The Petitioner filed his appeal on 
February 7, 2023. The Petitioner checked a box on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, stating, 
"My brief and/or additional evidence is attached." The evidence submitted with the Form I-290B was 
as follows : 
• A letter from the Petitioner dated February 2, 2023, stating "This authorization for 
credit card transactions - Form G-1450 is to pay the USCIS fee of $675.00 .... I've 
sent in another USPS Mail." 
• A receipt from the U.S. Postal Service in Orlando, Florida, dated February 4, 2023, 
demonstrating that an envelope was sent priority mail to Chicago, Illinois with 
postage of $9.65, with delivery scheduled on February 7, 2023. 
• A copy of the Acting Director's decision. 
We summarily dismissed the appeal on June 5, 2023, stating, "no brief or additional evidence was 
received by our office." The matter is now before us on the Petitioner's combined motions to reopen 
and reconsider. On motion, the Petitioner states that he submitted all evidence to the U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) Chicago Lockbox on February 2, 2023. He submits a copy of the 
additional evidence he asserts that he previously submitted with the combined motions. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen to instances where the filing party has shown "proper 
cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing 
requirements (such as submission of a properly completed Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion 
that does not meet applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or 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). 
On motion, the Petitioner explains that he received Form I-797C, Notice of Action, dated Februaj 9, 
2023, confirming USCIS receipt of his Form 1-290B with receipt numberl _ on 
February 7, 2023. He further states that USCIS issued a second Form I-797C dated February 14, 2023, 
with receipt numberl !rejecting his Form 1-290B. The Petitioner submits a copy of a 
letter he addressed to the USCIS Chicago Lockbox dated February 22, 2023, referencing the rejection 
notice, stating: 
I've sent two different packages through USPS (both tracking numbers attached). The 
first one with some new documentation, the 1-290B Notice of Appeal or Motion, G-
1450 Authorization for Credit Card Transaction. The USCIS Chicago already 
accepted, charged $675.00 and sent to me receipt (Numberl D- The 
second one with all the documentation the USCIS sent me back on Feb 14, 2023. 
The Petitioner maintains that he submitted additional evidence in support of his appeal along with 
correspondence to USCIS dated February 2, 2023. The record includes two letters to USCIS from the 
Petitioner dated February 2, 2023. One letter was received with Form 1-290B, as noted above, and 
states "I've sent in another USPS Mail." A second letter dated February 2, 2023, states "I really thank 
you to have the opportunity to present all new evidences [sic] (attached)." 1 The second letter appears 
to have been returned to the Petitioner, and nothing shows that he resubmitted the returned additional 
evidence. 
The Petitioner indicated on Form 1-290B that his additional evidence was attached to the form. 
However, based on the Petitioner's statement that he sent two separate packages to USCIS, it appears 
that the Petitioner may have submitted his additional evidence separately from the Form 1-290B, which 
appears to have been "rejected" since it was not submitted directly with the Form 1-290B. 2 
The regulations require an affected party to submit the complete appeal including any supporting brief 
or evidence as indicated in the applicable form instructions within 30 days after service of the decision. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i). The record reflects that the Petitioner filed his Form 1-290B and filing fee 
at the location designated by the form instructions and indicated that his additional evidence was 
1 The envelope for the Petitioner's appeal demonstrates that USPS accepted the Petitioner's mailing on February 6. 2023. 
with postage of $28.75, and the envelope was delivered to the USCTS Chicago Lockbox on February 7, 2023. The USPS 
receipt submitted with the appeal, however, does not list the name of the sender or the delivery address and is for a different 
date and postage amount, indicating it references a different mailing than the appeal. 
2 Although the Petitioner references having sent tracking numbers for both packages, the record does not include delivery 
confirmation matching the tracking number on the USPS receipt. 
2 
attached, however, the Petitioner admits that he sent additional evidence separately despite this 
selected notation. 
The form instructions to the Form 1-290B instruct appellants that, if all evidence is not submitted, 
USCIS may dismiss the appeal. The instructions farther instruct appellants who elect to submit a 
supplemental brief within 30 days of filing an appeal to mail the brief or additional evidence directly 
to the AAO. In this instance, the Petitioner did not submit his additional evidence in the same mailing 
as the Form 1-290B. Even if the Petitioner had indicated on the Form 1-290B that he would submit 
his additional evidence within 30 calendar days, he mailed the evidence to the USCIS Chicago 
Lockbox rather than to the AAO, as the form instructions state. 
The record before us at the time we summarily dismissed the Petitioner's initial appeal in June 2023 
did not contain a brief or other statement specifically identifying an erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact in the decision being appealed. Therefore, there was no error in summarily 
dismissing the appeal. While the new evidence submitted in support of this motion includes a copy 
of the additional evidence the Petitioner asserts that he initially submitted, the Petitioner has neither 
claimed nor presented evidence that the evidence was properly submitted in accordance with the form 
instructions as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(i). 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening the 
proceedings or reconsideration of our prior decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 3 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3 Even ifwe had considered the Petitioner's additional evidence, we still would have dismissed these combined motions. 
The Acting Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish all three of the prongs in the framework for adjudicating 
national interest waiver petitions set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016). Specifically, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has substantial merit or is of national 
importance, that he is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. With the motion the Petitioner 
addresses only the second Dhanasar prong. The Petitioner's evidence includes a cover page titled "Prong TT Well 
Positioned to Advance the Proposed Endeavor" and includes evidence already submitted in response to the Director's 
Notice oflntent to Deny. The Petitioner's evidence does not address all of the deficiencies outlined in the Acting Director's 
denial, including one and three of the Dhanasar prongs. 
3