remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Communications

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 13880763 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP. 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, who describes herself as a communications expert, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job 
offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that she is an individual of exceptional ability. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in 
the national interest. The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
The Director's two-page motion decision consists of a brief summary of the case's procedural history; 
a quotation of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a) regarding the requirements of a motion to reopen and of a motion 
to reconsider, respectively; a conclusion that the combined motion filing "satisfies the regulatory 
requirements for filing a motion to reopen and/or reconsider ," without clarifying whether the filing 
satisfied the requirements of a motion to reopen, or a motion to reconsider, or both; a two-sentence 
paragraph regarding the substance of the motion; and a boilerplate paragraph advising the Petitioner 
that she may file another motion or an appeal. 
The extent of the Director's two-sentence paragraph regarding the substance of the motion is as 
follows : 
After additional review of the record of proceeding, including your motion, [U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] has determined that you have not 
established eligibility for the requested benefit. Further, you have failed to establish 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial 
decision. 1 
1 The latter sentence refers to the requirements of a motion to reconsider at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3); however , such a 
requirement does not apply for a motion to reopen, which specifically addresses "new facts to be provided in the reopened 
proceeding ." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
While we conduct de novo review on appeal, we conclude that a remand is warranted in this case 
because the Director's motion decision is insufficient for review. When a USCIS officer denies an 
application or petition under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2-including entering a decision on a motion or appeal 
filed on a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion-the officer "shall explain in writing the specific 
reasons for denial." 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l5) (incorporating by 
reference 8 C.F.R. § 103.5); 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) (specifying that motions must be filed on Form 
I-290B). The Director's statements that the Petitioner "[had] not established eligibility for the 
requested benefit [ and] failed to establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of 
record at the time of the initial decision" does not sufficiently explain in writing the specific reasons 
for the unfavorable decision. 
Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the Director to conduct a final merits determination of 
the combined motion and enter a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the new determination and any other issue. As such, we express no opinion 
regarding the ultimate resolution of this case on remand. 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for farther 
proceedings consistent with the foregoing analysis and entry of a new decision. 
2