remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Cognitive Technology

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 27032783 Date: MAY 12, 2023 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a cognitive device and technology company, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification for the Beneficiary as amember of the professions holding 
an advanced degree and/or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The Director dismissed the subsequent motion to 
reconsider, determining that it lacked a statement as to whether the unfavorable decision had been the 
subject of any judicial proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). Additionally, the Director 
determined the motion had not met the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) because the Petitioner 
had not identified how the decision incorrectly applied law or policy and was incorrect based on the 
evidence. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts it already provided a statement fulfilling the requirement of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) , while also explaining such a statement is unnecessary and that requiring one is 
an incorrect interpretation of the regulation. Further, the Petitioner asserts its motion sufficiently 
identified how the decision contained errors, thereby meeting the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de nova. Matter of Christa's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
I. ANALYSIS 
A. The Litigation Statement 
The required statement on judicial proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C) is a procedural 
rule that helps U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) identify those cases involving 
judicial proceedings so they can be held in abeyance pending the outcome of litigation involving the 
originally filed petition. See, e.g., Memorandum from Richard E. Norton, Assoc. Comm'r for 
Examinations, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Adjudication of Petitions and Applications 
which are in Litigation or Pending Appeal (Feb. 8, 1989). 
The statement the Petitioner submitted with its appeal addresses the litigation statement issue. The 
Director did not have the opportunity to review this statement. Therefore, the Director may wish to 
determine, based upon the statement, whether the Petitioner has met the requirement at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a){l)(iii)(C). 
B. The Motion to Reconsider Statement 
The Petitioner asserted the Director's decision to deny the petition contains numerous errors, including 
that the Director (1) did not provide a determination as to whether the Beneficiary qualified for the 
EB-2 classification and (2) failed to address specific documents or explain the basis for the conclusions 
reached. In support, the Petitioner cited to caselaw, the Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 {AAO 
2016) precedent decision, and the Administrative Procedures Act at 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2012). The 
Petitioner also provided specific examples of information contained in the record that, based upon the 
contents of the decision, the Director appeared not to consider. While we agree that a petitioner cannot 
meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with the Director's 
conclusions, we invite the Director to reevaluate whether the Petitioner's assertions of error were 
sufficiently specific to meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. In so doing, the Director may 
wish to elaborate upon the explanations for the conclusions contained in the decision with a specificity 
sufficient such that one could conclude USCIS gave the petition reasoned consideration. 
11. CONCLUSION 
We withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for a new decision which addresses 
whether the Petitioner's motion satisfies the requirements of a motion to reconsider at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3) and whether the Petitioner's appellate statements satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C) regarding litigation statements. We express no opinion regarding the ultimate 
resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2