dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Academia

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23964256 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 26, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an assistant professor, 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 had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed the subsequent appeal, first withdrawing the Director's conclusion 
that the proposed endeavor would have national importance, then concluding that the record did not 
satisfy the first two Dhanasar prongs, reserving our opinion on the third Dhanasar prong. See Matter 
of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
Later, we dismissed the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, reaffirming our previous determination on 
appeal that that he had not established eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong. The matter is now 
before us again on a motion to reconsider our most recent decision. With the motion, the Petitioner 
submits a brief asserting that she is eligible for a national interest waiver. 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). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration; be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy; 
and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider that does not satisfy these requirements 
must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision," which in this case is our decision 
addressing the Petitioner's first motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). In our previous 
decision dismissing the Petitioner's motion we determined the Petitioner's arguments in her motion to 
reconsider did not show that we erred in concluding that she had not satisfied the "national importance" 
requirement ofDhanasar's first prong based on our de novo review of the record before us on appeal, or 
that the dismissal of her appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw, regulation, or USCIS policy. 
Because the Petitioner did not satisfy the first Dhanasar prong on motion, we did not address whether 
she has satisfied the second and third Dhanasar prongs and reserved them. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision 
of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). We dismissed the Petitioner's motion as it did not meet the applicable requirements. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). For the sake of brevity, we incorporate our previous analysis of the record and 
will repeat only certain facts and evidence as necessary to address the Petitioner's assertions in her 
current motion to reconsider. 1 
The Petitioner asserts on motion that her "opportunity to provide additional evidence was severely 
limited by the fact that the [Director's] RFE and [d]ecision did not challenge the first [Dhansasar] 
prong. In fact, it was only with the dismissal of the [a]ppeal the AAO challenged the first prong." 
Notably, when the Petitioner filed her previous motion to reconsider, she did not also file a motion to 
reopen, which affords an affected party an opportunity to state new relevant facts, supported by 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). That she elected not to do so limited her own ability 
to provide new evidence in support of her assertions. 
The Petitioner also proposes on motion that in our previous decision we agreed with and "conceded" 
her allegations that in our appellate decision we erred by "conflat[ing] her proposed endeavor - the 
focus of [Dhanasar's] first prong- with her proposed employment .... " We disagree. In the prior 
motion the Petitioner asserted that "specific details of [her] employment pursuits or future activities, 
whether she is employed as an assistant professor, adjunct professor, or international relations 
researcher" are irrelevant to the issue of determining whether the proposed endeavor would have 
national importance. We discussed in our most recent decision that in determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which 
an individual will work; instead, to assess national importance, we focus on the "specific endeavor 
that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Contrary to her 
propositions in the current motion, we did not agree with her stance that the specific details of her 
employment are irrelevant to our analysis of eligibility under Dhanasar 's first prong in our most recent 
decision. 
In our prior decision, we discussed the evidence regarding her proposed endeavor which she raised in 
her motion to reconsider, and ultimately concluded that the record did not provide sufficient detail, 
corroborated by objective evidence, to establish how the proposed research endeavor would have 
1 Our most previous decision in this matter was ID# 2102587 6 (AAO JUN. 13, 2022). 
2 
"national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain 
improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" or broader implications, such as "significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." See id. at 889-90. As a result, we dismissed her previous motion to 
reconsider determining that it did not establish that her proposed endeavor would rise to the level of 
national importance under the preponderance of evidence standard and that we erred in our appellate 
decision by withdrawing the Director's conclusion to the contrary. See id; see also Matter of 
Chawathe, 
While the Petitioner asks that we reconsider our previous decision, "overturn it, and approve [her] case," 
she does not identify or discuss the specific documentation that she believes we overlooked or 
misconstrued in arriving at our conclusions, based on the evidence in the record at that time, nor does she 
show how we misapplied law, regulation or USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, we 
will dismiss her motion to reconsider. 
We affirm our prior determination that the Petitioner did not sufficiently establish the significance of 
the teaching activities and prospective research projects she intends to undertake in the United States, and 
the connection between her prospective endeavor and the alleged broader implications of it. Matter 
of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsideration of our prior decision, nor established 
eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3