dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 In Re: 35139602 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an accountant, 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on the same basis. The matter is now before 
us again on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
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. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate 
eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) 
(requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the 
prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings (the dismissal of the 
appeal). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the 
requested benefit. 
In our appellate decision, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the first prong 
of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884,889 (AAO 2016). We 
explained that, although the Petitioner's endeavor of operating a tax consulting services company is 
substantially meritorious, the record did not establish the endeavor is nationally important under the 
first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Id. We acknowledged the Petitioner's assertions in her 
business plan, including both her financial and employment projections and concluded that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate her endeavor would provide substantial economic benefits as 
contemplated in Dhanasar. We also addressed the Petitioner's contentions on appeal, and explained 
that she did not establish her endeavor would result in broader implications at a level commensurate 
with national importance, beyond the immediate benefits to her prospective clients. Accordingly, 
because the Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
concluded that she was not eligible for a national interest waiver, and reserved her appellate arguments 
regarding the remaining Dhanasar prongs. 1 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner states that she has identified new evidence that directly supports 
the claims made in her petition, and establishes her eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 
Specifically, the Petitioner submits a statement outlining her intention to create an applicationJ II I designed to simplify tax compliance for a variety of users, including entrepreneurs and 
small business owners, individual taxpayers, foreign investors, government agencies, and educational 
institutions and researchers. The Petitioner asserts that the application will result in increased 
compliance and efficiency, enhanced user experiences for taxpayers, broader impact on public 
administration, and increased foreign investment. The Petitioner also provides evidence of her 
registration with the IRS as a certifying acceptance agent, as well as images showing the application's 
user interface. 
Although we have considered the merits of the Petitioner's contentions on motion, we note that, in 
general, material changes made after the filing of a petition need not be considered. See Matter of 
lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). In Matter oflzummi, the petitioner submitted 
numerous revisions to a partnership agreement following the director's denial, some of which were 
intended to "render the instant petition approvable." Id. at 175. Accordingly, we determined that 
those amendments would not be considered in adjudicating the petition, because "a petitioner may not 
make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make an apparently 
deficient petition conform to Service requirements." Id. at 375-76. Similarly, we conclude that the 
Petitioner's assertions on motion regarding her intent to develop I I amount to an 
attempt to correct a deficient petition after filing. The Petitioner did not previously indicate her 
intention to develop an application to market to her customers or the industry, nor does her business 
plan indicate the company intended to develop an application. 2 Therefore, we "cannot consider facts 
that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. 
Nonetheless, we note that, even if we did consider the Petitioner's evidence relating to the proposed 
application, the new evidence does not overcome the basis for our dismissal of the appeal. In 
particular, the Petitioner has not explained, for instance, how theirl Iis an improvement 
to other applications widely available in the market to allow us to determine whether it is indeed 
analogous to "improved manufacturing processes or medical advances" contemplated in Dhanasar. 
And the Petitioner has not explained how this application, even if used by her customers, would result 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-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). 
2 For example, neither the employment projections nor the operation costs projections in the business plan reflect an intent 
to engage in software development. 
2 
in broader implications at a level commensurate with national importance, beyond the immediate 
benefits to its users. As such, the evidence does not overcome our conclusion that the Petitioner has 
not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner generally asserts again that the evidence in the record before 
the Director was not properly considered, without addressing the conclusions made in our appellate 
decision. And the Petitioner asserts that "the initial decision may have overlooked or underappreciated 
the depth and scope ofmy contributions and their alignment with national interest." Notably, however, 
the Petitioner has not identified an erroneous conclusion of law or fact in our appellate decision, the 
decision that is the subject of this motion. Our prior decision properly analyzed the Petitioner's 
assertions regarding her proposed business and services, and considered the evidence in the record. 
The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with 
our conclusions; the motion must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy. See Matter 
of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by 
which the party seeks reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). Consequently, 
we have no basis for reconsideration of our decision. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our 
appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings, nor has she shown that we erred 
as a matter of law or policy. Accordingly, the combined motions will be dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3