dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Accounting/Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 13, 2024 In Re: 31260733 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field of accounting/business, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified as an advanced degree professional, she did not establish that a waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 1 The Director dismissed a 
subsequently filed combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us 
on appeal. 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 Christa 's, Inc. , 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
As a preliminary matter, we must emphasize that the Petitioner has not appealed the June 2023 denial 
of the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, but rather the Director's subsequent 
dismissal of her combined motions to reopen and reconsider from September 2023. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). Therefore, the question before us on appeal is limited to whether the Director erred in 
dismissing the combined motions. 2 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested benefit may be granted. See Matter of 
1 An advanced degree is any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that of a 
bachelor's degree. A United States bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent degree followed by five years of progressive 
experience in the specialty is the equivalent of a master's degree. 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
2 Although the June 2023 denial is not before us, we will refer to portions of that decision for context. 
Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 4 73 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change 
the outcome). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). In the motion to reopen, the Petitioner referenced previously submitted evidence, such 
as the business plan, offering the same or similar arguments that the Director already considered and 
discussed in the June 2023 decision. Upon review, we agree that the Petitioner had not established 
eligibility for the requested classification and therefore, the Director properly dismissed the motion to 
reopen. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that the 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). A motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested benefit may be granted. 
In the June 2023 denial notice, the Director concluded that the Petitioner had not shown "that the 
proposed endeavor will impact the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance," and had not demonstrated "that the proposed endeavor realistically has the significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive effects for the United 
States." 3 The Director discussed the Petitioner's business plan and financial documents. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner contended that "some of the case facts, that fulfilled the laws 
and policies, were not considered at the time the decision was made by USCIS." The Petitioner also 
repeated verbatim her arguments regarding the national importance of her proposed endeavor from the 
initial petition letter and her request for evidence response without explaining why the Director should 
find these claims any more persuasive than before. Further, as noted above, she referenced previously 
submitted evidence offering the same or similar arguments that the Director already considered and 
discussed in the June 2023 decision. Moreover, the motion brief did not contend that the Director's 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, nor was it supported by any relevant 
caselaw, statute, or regulation. Thus, the Director properly dismissed the motion to reconsider. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again contends "that her application was not carefully and fairly reviewed 
by the case officer as many of the case facts, that fulfilled the laws and policies, were not considered 
at the time the decision was made by the case officer." The Petitioner further states that she is 
submitting "the same application along with the evidence, that was submitted to the USCIS for the 
motion to reopen and reconsider, with the initial petition and Request for Evidence submission." 
However, as previously stated, upon review, she has not established eligibility for the requested 
national interest waiver, and therefore, for the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that 
the Director dismissed her combined motions in error or otherwise overcomes the basis for the prior 
decision. As such, we will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition 
remains denied. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
3 The Director incorrectly included their analysis of "evidence of investors interested in funding [her] endeavor" under 
Dhanasar 's first prong. The interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other relevant entities or individuals are 
considerations under Dhanasar's second prong. 
2