The Petitioner seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability, Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this employment based second preference (EB-2) classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. The matter is now before us on appeal. 1 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) provides that "[u]nless otherwise specified in this chapter, an acceptable signature on a benefit request that is being filed with the USCIS [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] is one that is either handwritten or, for benefit request filed electronically as permitted by the instructions to the form, in electronic format." 2 The USCJS Policy Manual provides that in "general, any person requesting an immigration benefit must sign their own immigration benefit request, and any other associated documents, before filing it with USCIS." See generally 1 USCJS Policy Manual, supra, at C.1 (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2)). USCIS policy explains that a valid signature is "any handwritten mark or sign made by 1 The Petitioner references sections at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5 pertaining to motions to reconsider and styles their brief accordingly. We do not have jurisdiction over motions to reconsider or motions to reopen decisions other than our own. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). But the Petitioner indicated they were filing an appeal to us with an attached brief and/or additional evidence in Part 2 of Form l-290B. So we will treat the Petitioner's submission as an appeal and proceed accordingly.
a person" and such signature must be made by the person who is the affected party with standing to file the benefit request to signify that "[t]he person knows of the content of the request and any supporting documents; [t]he person has reviewed and approves of any information contained in such request and any supporting documents; and [t]he person certifies under penalty of perjury that the request and any other supporting documents are true and correct." See generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual B.2(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual. A person's signature on an immigration form establishes a strong presumption that the signer knows and has assented to its contents, absent evidence of fraud or other wrongful acts by another person. Matter of Valdez, 27 I&N Dec. 496, 499 (BIA 2018) (citing Thompson v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 638, 647 (6th Cir. 2015); Bingham v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011). The probative force of a declaration subscribed under penalty of perjury derives from the signature of the declarant.
The Petitioner concedes that they submitted their forms with electronic signatures but contends that their electronic signatures are valid. 3 But the Petitioner mistakenly equates electronic signatures with electronically reproduced original signatures. Contrary to the Petitioner's assertions, USCIS does not accept electronic or digitally produced signatures on forms submitted for immigration benefits.
Although a signature may be considered valid if it is "photocopied, scanned, faxed, or similarly reproduced .... the copy must be of an original document containing an original handwritten signature, unless otherwise specified." See generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B. If someone acting on behalf of a petitioner's signatory, such as someone from their attorney's office, performs the function of electronically applying a signature to a Form 1-140, that act nullifies the filing because it is not a valid signature, and it is not properly signed under penalty of perjury. Ultimately, even if a filing party presents a photocopy of a Form 1-140 to USCIS, that photocopied form must contain a filing party's original signature that is consistent with how the person normally signs their name because "[a]n applicant or petitioner must sign his or her benefit request." 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2). The USCIS Policy Manual further explains that the agency interprets the regulatory term "valid signature" to mean a signature that "is consistent with how the person signing normally signs his or her name." See generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B (explaining that the appearance of the signature on USCIS forms must be preponderantly consistent with that person's normal signature).
Although the "regulations do not require that the person signing submit an 'original' or 'wet ink' signature on a petition, application, or other request to USCIS," USCIS does "not accept signatures created by a typewriter, word processor, stamp, auto-pen, or similar device." See generally l USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at B. See also generally 1 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at A (stating that "[ e ]xcept as otherwise specifically authorized, a benefit requestor must personally sign his or her own request before filing it with USCIS"). USCIS has implemented these regulations and attendant policies "to maintain the integrity ofthe immigration benefit system and validate the identity ofbenefit 3 The Petitioner includes an image in their appeal brief purportedly of an excerpt of Form 1-140 they contend reflects that their immigration form T-140 was properly signed. However, the signature in the image of the T-140 form is dated May 18, 2023, almost two months after the Director's March 22, 2023 decision. And the signature contained in the image of the T-140 form is considerably different in font, size, and spacing than the signature on the form T-140 in the record. The inconsistency between the Petitioner's assertions, evidence they submit on appeal, and documentation in the record of proceeding raise considerable unresolved doubts about the reliability and sufficiency of any of the Petitioner's representations in these petition proceedings.Inconsistencies in the record Sec Matter of Ho, 19 T&N Dec. 582 at 591 ("Doubt cast on any aspect of the petitioner's proof may lead to a reevaluation of the reliability and sufficiency of the remaining evidence offered in support of the visa petition"). We conclude the images do not correspond to the form the Petition submitted with their petition on October 24, 2022. p. 3 requestors." See generally l USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at A. In the same way that one person signing a declaration "for" another person carries no evidentiary force, neither will an image of a signature duplicated using some electronic means or method. Without the signatory's actual and personal signature as the declarant, the declaration under the penalty of perjury on the Form 1-140 has no evidentiary force. See in re Rivera, 342 B.R. 435, 458-459 (D. N.J. 2006).
The Petitioner also asserts the Director erred in denying the Petition based on their deficient signature. They contend that the Director was required to reject the petition on the basis of their noncompliant signature. This is incorrect. The Director may reject, deny, or dismiss a benefit request that does not contain a valid or a proper signature. And the Director is not required to provide an opportunity to correct or cure a deficient signature. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(ii)(A); see generally l USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at A.
In visa petition proceedings it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.