dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 16, 2024 In Re: 29124265 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or of 
exceptional ability, Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 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 (EB-2) 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. See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) 
(joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in 
concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 1 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 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). We 
review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 
2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) provides that "[u]nless otherwise specified in this chapter, an 
acceptable signature on a benefit request that is being filed with the USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services] is one that is either handwritten or, for benefit request filed electronically as 
permitted by the instructions to the form, in electronic format." 2 
The USCJS Policy Manual provides that in "general, any person requesting an immigration benefit 
must sign their own immigration benefit request, and any other associated documents, before filing it 
with USCIS." See generally 1 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at C.1 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(a)(2)). USCIS policy explains that a valid signature is "any handwritten mark or sign made by 
1 The Petitioner references sections at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 pertaining to motions to reconsider and styles their brief 
accordingly. We do not have jurisdiction over motions to reconsider or motions to reopen decisions other than our own. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). But the Petitioner indicated they were filing an appeal to us with an attached brief and/or 
additional evidence in Part 2 of Form l-290B. So we will treat the Petitioner 's submission as an appeal and proceed 
accordingly. 
2 Because the Form I-140 was not electronically filed, none of the provisions governing electronic filings apply. 
a person" and such signature must be made by the person who is the affected party with standing to 
file the benefit request to signify that "[t]he person knows of the content of the request and any 
supporting documents; [t]he person has reviewed and approves of any information contained in such 
request and any supporting documents; and [t]he person certifies under penalty of perjury that the 
request and any other supporting documents are true and correct." See generally 1 USCIS Policy 
Manual B.2(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. A person's signature on an immigration form 
establishes a strong presumption that the signer knows and has assented to its contents, absent 
evidence of fraud or other wrongful acts by another person. Matter of Valdez, 27 I&N Dec. 496, 499 
(BIA 2018) (citing Thompson v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 638, 647 (6th Cir. 2015); Bingham v. Holder, 637 
F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011). The probative force of a declaration subscribed under penalty of 
perjury derives from the signature of the declarant. 
The Petitioner concedes that they submitted their forms with electronic signatures but contends that 
their electronic signatures are valid. 3 But the Petitioner mistakenly equates electronic signatures with 
electronically reproduced original signatures. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, USCIS does not 
accept electronic or digitally produced signatures on forms submitted for immigration benefits. 
Although a signature may be considered valid if it is "photocopied, scanned, faxed, or similarly 
reproduced .... the copy must be of an original document containing an original handwritten signature, 
unless otherwise specified." See generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B. If someone acting 
on behalf of a petitioner's signatory, such as someone from their attorney's office, performs the 
function of electronically applying a signature to a Form 1-140, that act nullifies the filing because it 
is not a valid signature, and it is not properly signed under penalty of perjury. Ultimately, even if a 
filing party presents a photocopy of a Form 1-140 to USCIS, that photocopied form must contain a 
filing party's original signature that is consistent with how the person normally signs their name 
because "[a]n applicant or petitioner must sign his or her benefit request." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). 
The USCIS Policy Manual further explains that the agency interprets the regulatory term "valid 
signature" to mean a signature that "is consistent with how the person signing normally signs his or 
her name." See generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B (explaining that the appearance of the 
signature on USCIS forms must be preponderantly consistent with that person's normal signature). 
Although the "regulations do not require that the person signing submit an 'original' or 'wet ink' 
signature on a petition, application, or other request to USCIS," USCIS does "not accept signatures 
created by a typewriter, word processor, stamp, auto-pen, or similar device." See generally l USCIS 
Policy Manual, supra, at B. See also generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at A (stating that 
"[ e ]xcept as otherwise specifically authorized, a benefit requestor must personally sign his or her own 
request before filing it with USCIS"). USCIS has implemented these regulations and attendant 
policies "to maintain the integrity of the immigration benefit system and validate the identity of benefit 
3 The Petitioner includes an image in their appeal brief purportedly of an excerpt of Form 1-140 they contend reflects that 
their immigration form T-140 was properly signed. However, the signature in the image of the T-140 form is dated May 
18, 2023, almost two months after the Director's March 22, 2023 decision. And the signature contained in the image of 
the T-140 form is considerably different in font, size, and spacing than the signature on the form T-140 in the record. The 
inconsistency between the Petitioner's assertions, evidence they submit on appeal, and documentation in the record of 
proceeding raise considerable unresolved doubts about the reliability and sufficiency of any of the Petitioner's 
representations in these petition proceedings. Sec Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. 582 at 591 ("Doubt cast on any aspect of 
the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in 
support of the visa petition"). We conclude the images do not correspond to the form the Petition submitted with their 
petition on October 24, 2022. 
2 
requestors." See generally l USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at A. In the same way that one person 
signing a declaration "for" another person carries no evidentiary force, neither will an image of a 
signature duplicated using some electronic means or method. Without the signatory's actual and 
personal signature as the declarant, the declaration under the penalty of perjury on the Form 1-140 has 
no evidentiary force. See in re Rivera, 342 B.R. 435, 458-459 (D. N.J. 2006). 
The Petitioner also asserts the Director erred in denying the Petition based on their deficient signature. 
They contend that the Director was required to reject the petition on the basis of their noncompliant 
signature. This is incorrect. The Director may reject, deny, or dismiss a benefit request that does not 
contain a valid or a proper signature. And the Director is not required to provide an opportunity to 
correct or cure a deficient signature. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(A); see generally l USCIS Policy 
Manual, supra, at A. 
In visa petition proceedings it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3