remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Communication And Networking Technologies

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 30, 2024 In Re: 31300876 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a researcher in communication and networking technologies, seeks employment-based 
second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, 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 (TSC) initially approved the petition, but subsequently 
revoked the approval on notice when the premium processing fee was not honored. The matter is now 
before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 l&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
Every benefit request must be accompanied by the fee(s) required by regulation. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(a)(l). A petitioner may submit a request for premium processing of certain immigration 
benefits requests, subject to additional fees. 8 C.F.R. § 106.4. If a benefit request was approved, but 
a payment is not honored by a bank or financial institution, "the approval may be revoked upon notice, 
rescinded, or canceled." 8 C.F .R. § 106.1 ( c )(2). If the approved benefit request requires multiple fees, 
approval may be revoked if any fee, including a fee to request premium processing, is not honored. 
Id. 
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy manual clarifies the procedures for 
dishonored payments in premium processing cases: 
Returned Payment for Premium Processing Service Requests 
If a premium processing fee for a Request for Premium Processing Service (Form 1-
907) is declined or returned when it is filed at the same time as a Petition for 
Nonimmigrant Worker (Form 1-129) or Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Form 
1-140), USCIS rejects the entire filing. 
If USCIS has approved the petition and any fee, including one fee of a multiple fee 
filing, is declined or returned, USCIS may revoke the approval upon notice. 
In this case, USCIS issues a Notice oflntent to Revoke (NOIR) to the requestor. If the 
requestor does not rectify the declined or returned payment within the requisite NOIR 
time period, USCIS revokes the approval and retains ( and does not refund) any fee that 
was honored in association with the approval. 
1 USCIS Policy Manual B.6(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
To sufficiently respond to a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) issued based on a returned filing fee, 
the petitioner or applicant "must, within the requisite NOIR time period, provide payment of the 
correct fee amount or demonstrate that the payment was honored or that it was rejected by USCIS by 
mistake." Id. Otherwise, USCIS will conclude that the petitioner or applicant did not pay the required 
fees under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l) and will revoke the approval of the benefit request. Id. 
The Petitioner filed the EB-2 classification petition, which was received and receipted by USCIS in 
January of 2023. The Petitioner then attempted to submit a premium processing request in February 
of 2023. However, a series of mailing delays and caused the Petitioner to cancel the check associated 
with this filing and submit a second premium processing request. The second request was received in 
late February. Then, the first request resurfaced and was also delivered in late February. The 
Petitioner contacted the TSC, hoping to clarify the situation and ensure that the second submission 
would be receipted and processed for fee payment. 
The Director approved the Petition on March 3, 2023. Subsequently, on March 8, the Director 
determined that the premium processing fee had not been honored. At this time, the Director appears 
to have issued a notice of rejection. However, the Director subsequently issued a NOIR in April of 
2023. The NOIR indicated that the petition would be revoked unless the Petitioner provided evidence 
"that the payment method was valid and was honored by the financial institution." The NOIR also 
indicated that the Petitioner could "not respond to this notice by submitting any form of repayment." 
On appeal, the Petitioner outlines the mailing issues above and restates various arguments made in 
response to the NOIR, most relevantly: confirming that the second submission contained a valid check 
and was received at TSC before the cancelled check, providing records of communications with TSC 
regarding the receipt and processing of duplicate requests, and providing proof of sufficient funds in 
the associated checking account. The Petitioner argues that rejection was improper in this case because 
the benefit had already been approved, and the Director's reliance on 8 C.F.R. 103.2 was misplaced. 
Rather, the Petitioner contends that the Director should have relied on 8 C.F.R. 106.1 (C)(2). 
2 
As an initial matter, we note that we have jurisdiction to decide this appeal. We do not have 
jurisdiction to review rejections of benefits, but we do have the authority to review revocations. 
See generally 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.2(7)(iii), 106. l(c)(2). Here, the Director issued both a notice ofrejection 
and a NOTR. However, the policy manual indicates that the NOTR was the appropriate notice given 
the prior approval of the petition. 1 USCIS Policy Manual B.6(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual. Despite the issuance of the rejection notice, the Director appears to have ultimately decided 
the case by issuing a revocation after the NOTR response was received. We therefore have jurisdiction 
to review the revocation of the approval for nonpayment of fees. 
Although the Director followed the proper steps in issuing a NOTR prior to revocation of the case, the 
Director's NOIR did not provide the Petitioner with complete and correct information regarding the 
options in response. The NOIR limited the Petitioner by indicating that a response required a showing 
that payment was valid and honored by the financial institution and by not allowing repayment as an 
option. However, the policy manual allows for other "sufficient" responses to a NOIR, including 
making a payment for the fee amount or showing that USCIS made an error. Id. Because the Petitioner 
was not afforded the full range of corrective measures during the NOIR response period, the Director's 
revocation for nonpayment of fees was in error. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3