dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

identifying data deleted to 
pent clearly unwarranted 
of aersonal ~rivact 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Wash~ngton, DC 20529 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
SRC 04 193 5 1550 
PETITION: 
 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. 5 11 53(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
D"-'c~~ 
5 Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DISCUSSION: The employment-based immigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Texas Service 
Center. The petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which the director dismissed. The matter is now before the 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. 9 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an alien of exceptional 
ability. 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 the petitioner had not established 
that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
The petition was filed on July 6, 2004. On March 14, 2005, noting that the record was deficient, the director 
requested additional evidence in support of the petition. On July 7, 2005, after the petitioner failed to submit 
the requested evidence, the director denied the petition for abandonment pursuant to the regulations at 
8 C.F.R. $9 103.2(b)(13) and (15). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(15) provides that no appeal lies 
from the denial of a petition for abandonment. 
On August 1, 2005, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which the director dismissed on September 28, 
2005. The director correctly informed the petitioner that no appeal would lie from her decision "to dismiss a 
motion to reopen a petition denied due to abandonment." The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 9 103,5(a)(6) states: 
"Appeal to AAU from Service decision made as a result of a motion. A field office decision made as a result 
of a motion may be applied [appealed] to the AAU only if the original decision was appealable to the AAU." 
In this case, the original decision was not appealable to the AAO; therefore, the AAO does not have 
jurisdiction over this matter. Nevertheless, the petitioner submitted the appeal on October 25, 2005. 
As there is no appeal from the director's dismissal of the motion to reopen, the petitioner's appeal must be 
rejected. 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected.