dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Urban Forestry

U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,Ms 2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and ImmigratiOn
Services
DATE: OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
DEC2 12012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor AlienWorkerasaMemberof theProfessionsHoldinganAdvanced
Degreeor anAlienof ExceptionalAbility PursuanttoSection203(b)(2)of theImmigration
andNationalityAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind thedecisionof theAdministrativeAppealsOfficein yourcase.All of thedocuments
relatedto thismatterhavebeenreturnedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Pleasebeadvisedthat
anyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe AAO inappropriatelyappliedthe law in reachingits decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopenin
accordancewith the instructionson FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with a fee of $630. The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§103.5. Do not file any motion
directly with theAAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotiontobefiled within
30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
onRosenbe
ActingChief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: TheDirector,NebraskaServiceCenter,deniedtheemployment-basedimmigrantvisa
petition. TheAdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO) dismissedthepetitioner'sappeal.Thepetitioner
filed a motion to reopenandreconsiderthe AAO's decision. The AAO dismissedthe motion to
reconsider,grantedthemotionto reopen,andaffirmedthedismissalof theappeal.Thematteris now
beforetheAAO onanothermotiontoreopen.TheAAO will dismissthemotion.
Thepetitionerseeksclassificationundersection203(b)(2)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct (the
Act), 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(2),asanalienof exceptionalabilityin thesciences.Thepetitionerseeks
employmentasanurbanforesterat the Universityof California,SanDiego(UCSD). Thepetitioner
assertsthatanexemptionfrom therequirementof ajob offer,andthusof a laborcertification,is in the
nationalinterestof theUnitedStates.TheAAO reversedthedirector'sfindingthatthepetitionerdoes
notqualifyfor classificationasanalienof exceptionalability in thesciences,andaffirmedthefinding
thatthepetitionerhasnotestablishedthatanexemptionfrom therequirementof ajob offerwouldbein
thenationalinterestof theUnitedStates.
A motionto reopenmuststatethenewfactsto beprovedin thereopenedproceedingandbesupported
by affidavitsor otherdocumentaryevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2).A motionthatdoesnot meet
applicablerequirementsshallbedismissed.8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(4).
TheAAO discussedthestatutorylanguageandcaselaw concerningthenationalinterestwaiverin its
twopriordecisionsdatedJanuary19,2012andSeptember5,2012,bothincorporatedhereby reference.
In short,section203(b)(2)(A)of theActrequiresanalienof exceptionalabilityin thesciencestohavea
job offer (includinglaborcertification)from a UnitedStatesemployer,but section203(b)(2)(B)of the
Act permitsimmigrationauthoritiestowaivethatrequirementin thenationalinterest.
MatterofNew YorkStateDept.of Transportation(NYSDOT),22I&N Dec.215(Act. Assoc.Comm'r
1998),listsseveralfactorswhichmustbeconsideredwhenevaluatinga requestfor a nationalinterest
waiver. First,thepetitionermustshowthathe seeksemploymentin an areaof substantialintrinsic
merit. Next,thepetitionermustshowthattheproposedbenefitwill benationalin scope.Finally,the
petitionerseekingthewaivermustestablishthathe will servethe nationalinterestto a substantially
greaterdegreethanwouldanavailableUnitedStatesworkerwiththesameminimumqualifications.
Thepetitionerfiled theFormI-140petitiononSeptember3, 2009. Thedirectordeniedthepetition
on August6, 2010,andtheAAO dismissedthe appealon January19,2012. TheAAO foundthat
the petitionerhadsatisfiedthe first two prongsof theNYSDOTnationalinteresttest,but hadnot
shownthathewill servethenationalinterestto a substantiallygreaterdegreethanwouldanavailable
UnitedStatesworkerwith thesameminimumqualifications.
In his first motion to reopen,the petitioner submittedinformation and evidenceregardinghis
activitiesbetween2007and2011.WhentheAAO issuedits seconddecisiononSeptember5,2012,
theAAO stated:"An applicantor petitionermustestablishthatheor sheis eligiblefor therequested
benefitat thetimeof filing thebenefitrequest.8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(1).. . . TheAAO will limit
considerationto endeavorsthatpredatethefiling of thepetition."
Page3
In its September2012decision,theAAO acknowledgedthepetitioner'sstatement,below:
TheUC SanDiegoUrbanForestManagementPlan. . . whichI wrotein 2008,and
which was cited in a consultingecologist's2009 report on the campusforest's
environmentalbenefits. . . , was recentlytagged'a great teaching tool' by Amy
Hoffman, a Registered LandscapeArchitect and faculty at NewSchool of
Architecture,SanDiego.. . ShefoundthePlanontheInternet.Thereis noknowing
how many other professionalsall over the country are also using the Plan as a
resource.
TheAAO notedthatthepetitionerhadnot shownhis plan to be in widespreaduse. Rather,hehad
shownthat otherforestershaveaccessto the plan. The AAO found that, without evidenceof its
impact,theplan'smereexistenceis notpresumptiveevidenceof eligibility for thewaiver.
DespitetheAAO's explanationthatthepetitioner'sactivitiesin 2011and2012cannotretroactively
showthatUSCIScouldor shouldhaveapprovedthepetitionin 2009,severalexhibitssubmittedon
motion relate to the beneficiary'srecentactivities. Thoseactivities include an addressthat the
petitionerdeliveredto anArborDayFoundationgatheringonNovember14,2011;a"CarbonOffset
Conference"in late2012;anda presentationto theInlandUrbanForestCouncilon September7,
2012. Thesematerialsshowthatthepetitionerdisseminatedhis work outsidetheUCSDcampus
severalyearsafterthe2009filing date,butnotthatthoseideaswerein widespreadusein 2012or,
moreimportantly,in 2009.Eligibility dependsontheimpactof one'sworkatthetimeof filing, not
on thepotentialfor possibleimpactyearslater. Thepetitionercannotestablisheligibility asof the
2009 filing date by traveling around the country years later to promote his Urban Forest
ManagementPlan.
Thepetitionersubmitscopiesof internalUCSDmaterials,suchasan electronicslidepresentation
thatthepetitionerhimselfpreparedin 2005,andtheminutesof aJuly24,2006meetingof UCSD's
ParkCommittee.Thesematerials,andnewaffidavitsfromthreeUCSDofficials,establishthatthe
petitionerplaysanimportantrolewithin UCSD'surbanforestryprogram,but theydo notaddress
thefundamentalissuesrepeatedlyraisedin thepreviousthreeUSCISdecisionsonthepetition.
Thepetitionersubmitsa co of an October4, 2012affidavitfrom
who served om 1985to 1988.
statesthathe"invited [thepetitioner]. . . to give a specialpresentationat theAugust
1987Workshopon 'ForestManagementPracticesin Semi-aridareasof NorthemNigeria.'"
statesthatthepetitioner"did anoutstandingjob of teachingthis relativelynewconceptto
forestrypersonnels[sic] of varyingexperiencelevelsin aneasy-to-understandandeasy-to-doway."
Like the other materialssubmittedon motion, this affidavit doesnot addressthe heartof the
concernsexpressedfirst bythedirectorandlaterbytheAAO.
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2)requiresthatamotionto reopenmuststatethenewfactsto
be providedin the reopenedproceedingand be supportedby affidavitsor otherdocumentary
evidence.Basedon the plain meaningof "new," evidencethatwaspreviouslyavailableandwhich
thepetitionercould havebeendiscoveredor presentedearlierin theproceedingdoesnot establish
"newfacts."1 Recentlyexecutedaffidavitscontainingold informationthatthepetitionercouldhave
submittedpreviouslyarenot"new" in this sense.
At the sametime, becausethe petitionermust establisheligibility at the time of filing, evidence
submittedon motionmustbe "new" but mustserveto demonstratethatthe petitionerwaseligible,
andhispetitionapprovable,atthetimeof filing in 2009. TheAAO neednotrepeatedlyreopenthe
proceedingin responseto motionaftermotiondetailingthepetitioner'slatestactivities. To entertain
multiplemotionsin thiswaywould needlesslyprolongtheproceedingto no neteffect.
Reviewof the evidencenewly submittedon motionrevealsno fact thatcouldbeconsidered"new"
under8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2).All evidencesubmittedwaspreviouslyavailableandthe petitioner
could havesubmittedit earlier in the previousproceeding. None of the evidencesubmittedon
motion specificallyaddressespoints that the AAO raisedin its most recentdecision,andwhich
(therefore)thepetitionerhasnothada previousopportunityto address.Theevidencesubmittedon
motiondoesnot relateto "newfacts"andtheAAO doesnotconsiderit to bea properbasisfor a
motionto reopen.
USCISdisfavorsmotionsfor thereopeningof immigrationproceedingsaredisfavoredfor thesame
reasonsas petitionsfor rehearingand motionsfor a new trial on the basisof newly discovered
evidence.INSv.Doherty,502U.S.314,323(1992)(citingINSv.Abudu,485U.S.94(1988)).A
partyseekingto reopenaproceedingbearsa "heavyburden."INSv.Abadu,485U.S.at 110. With
the currentmotion,the petitionerhasnot met that burden. The AAO will dismissthe motion to
reopen.
ORDER: Themotionisdismissed.
1The relevantdefinitionsof theword "new" are"l. havingexistedor beenmadefor only a shorttime . . . 3. Just
discovered,found,or learned<newevidence>. . . ." Webster's11NewCollegeDictionary736(2001)(emphasisin
original).