remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Economics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17815053 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 6, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an economist, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Director dismissed the subsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider 
solely because it was not accompanied by a statement about whether or not the unfavorable decision 
has been the subject of any judicial proceeding . See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) . On appeal, the 
Petitioner submits a brief arguing that she meets the requirements for a national interest waiver. Thjs brief 
includes a statement indicating that "[t]his petition is not and has not been the subject of any judicial 
proceedings ." 
The Petitioner has the burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of 
the evidence . See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for 
issuance of a new decision . 
The required statement on judicial proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) is a procedural 
rule that helps U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services identify those cases involving judicial 
proceedings so they can be held in abeyance pending the outcome oflitigation 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 that the Petitioner submitted with her 
appeal addresses the Director's sole ground for dismissal by confirming that her petition is not and has 
not been the subject of any judicial proceeding. 
Accordingly, we will withdraw the Director 's decision and remand the matter for a new decision on 
the merits addressing whether the Petitioner's combined motion satisfies the requirements of a motion 
to reopen and a motion to reconsider at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) and (3). 
ORDER: The decision of the Director is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a 
new decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2