remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2025 In Re: 34031996 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse, 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 denied the petition, concluding that the record establishes 
that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but does not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. The 
Petitioner subsequently filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider with the Texas Service 
Center. The motions were dismissed, and 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 I&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. 
The Director dismissed the combined motions based on 8 C.F.R. §103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), stating that the 
Petitioner's combined motions were not accompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity 
of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, 
nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding. However, the Director did not provide an analysis 
of the Petitioner's brief or of the new evidence that she submitted. Accordingly, we will withdraw the 
Director's latest decision and remand the matter for a new decision addressing the merits of the 
Petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for a new decision which addresses the 
Petitioner's combined motions statement, and the additional evidence submitted. If the case meets the 
requirements for the motion to reconsider, the Director should determine if the Petitioner has 
established eligibility for the underlying classification and for a national interest waiver and to enter a 
new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the 
determination prior to issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2