Human Resources Director

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that USCIS erroneously applied law or policy in dismissing her appeal. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor satisfied the national importance aspect of the first Dhanasar prong, failing to show broader implications, potential for U.S. job creation, or other substantial positive economic effects. The Petitioner's arguments were deemed to be mere disagreement with conclusions without demonstrating legal or policy error, and she did not show how USCIS applied a stricter standard of proof than the preponderance of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The motion to reopen was dismissed as no new facts supported by documentary evidence were presented. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time.

The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that that the proposed endeavor was of national importance, that the Petitioner is well positioned to advance the endeavor, or that it would be beneficial to waive the requirements of a job offer. The appeal was dismissed as moot because the Petitioner's application to register permanent residence was subsequently approved on October 15, 2024, based on another approved petition.

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the Petitioner's claim that a high school diploma plus 30 years of work experience qualifies as an advanced degree was rejected, as agency policy requires at least a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent. The 'three-for-one' rule cited by the Petitioner's evaluator was found to be inapplicable to immigrant employment petitions. Additionally, the Petitioner's claim of exceptional ability was not adequately raised or supported in the initial petition or appeal, making it an insufficient basis for reconsideration.