dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aircraft Maintenance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2024 In Re: 35231072 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanical maintenance specialist, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability as well as a national 
interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification or a national interest waiver. We 
dismissed a subsequent appeal and combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now 
before us again on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 1 
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. 
1 Although the Petitioner only marked the box for a motion to reopen on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, he 
nonetheless asserts that he is submitting both a motion to reopen and reconsider in his brief accompanying the Form I-
290B; accordingly, we will review the instant motion as combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
In our most recent decision dismissing the Petitioner's first combined motions to reopen and 
reconsider, we determined that the Petitioner's revised endeavor statement submitted on motion 
amounted to an attempt to materially change his proposed endeavor. Accordingly, we informed the 
Petitioner that we would not consider the materially changed proposed endeavor on motion, as a 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 2 And, relying on Matter ofIzwnmi, 22 I&N 
Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm. 1998), we also informed the Petitioner that he may not make material 
changes to his petition "in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements." We 
therefore concluded that the new evidence submitted on motion did not establish his eligibility for the 
national interest waiver. Additionally, we determined that, on motion to reconsider, the Petitioner did 
not establish that our prior decision dismissing his appeal was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy. Accordingly, we dismissed the Petitioner's combined motions. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a new brief along with a copy of his personal statement submitted 
before the Director and on appeal, and a copy of his endeavor statement submitted with his prior 
motion to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner asserts that our prior decision inaccurately interpreted 
his submission "as two distinct endeavors rather than a single, cohesive proposal with complementary 
elements." According to the Petitioner, both his original submission and the statements submitted on 
motion 3 "focus on the same objective: enhancing the U.S. aviation maintenance industry through 
advanced, sustainable practices and innovative methodologies." He states that, while his initial filing 
provided an outline of a broader strategic plan (the "what" of his endeavor), his statement submitted 
on motion provided a "more detailed explanation of [his] methods and techniques," and did not 
materially change the endeavor. We disagree. 
The record reflects that before the Director, the Petitioner indicated that he intended to work as an 
aircraft maintenance specialist to improve the aviation industry, and provide "safe and practical 
solutions to travel nationally or internationally." Specifically, the Petitioner claimed that he would 
troubleshoot, diagnose, and replace aircrafts, which would provide "mission-critical services" to 
numerous industries and in particular those operating in transportation, tourism, and healthcare. Then, 
in his appellate brief: the Petitioner again asserted that as an aircraft maintenance specialist, he would 
"provide aid in troubleshooting, diagnosing, and replacements of the aircraft," and would be 
"responsible for ensuring that aircraft are in proper working condition, which is essential to the safety 
of air travel." He also emphasized that since the initial filing he continuously maintained "his intention 
to offer his services to benefit a company in [the United States]," and relied heavily on the expert 
opinion letter in the record, which discussed the benefits of his individualized services as an aircraft 
maintenance specialist. In our decision dismissing his appeal, we explained that while we 
acknowledged the substantial merit of this endeavor, we agreed that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated his endeavor would result in broader implications beyond the benefits provided to his 
prospective employers, or otherwise result in substantial economic effects. 
2 8 C.F.R. §§ 103 . .2(b)(12); see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'! Comm'r 1971) (confoming that" [a] 
petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing" and that "a petition cannot be approved at a future date after the 
petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts") 
3 The Petitioner repeatedly refers to his revised endeavor statement "submitted on appeal"; however, he did not submit this 
endeavor statement with his appeal. On appeal, the Petitioner relied on the same personal statement submitted before the 
Director. The new endeavor statement was submitted for the fist time with his combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
2 
In his subsequent combined motions to reopen and reconsider, the Petitioner submitted a new endeavor 
statement in which he indicated that he intended to "revolutionize [the] aviation maintenance 
industry," by "implementing advanced sustainable practices ... supported by comprehensive training 
programs for technicians adopting international best practices in environmental stewardship" with the 
goal ofreducing "the ecological footprint of aviation maintenance operations drastically." As stated, 
we concluded that the new endeavor statement represented an impermissible material change to his 
initial proposed endeavor to "work in the United States as an [ a ]ircraft [ m ]aintenance [ s ]pecialist to 
improve U.S. Aviation Industry effectively, [and] provide aid in troubleshooting, diagnosing, and 
replacements of aircraft." 
Now, on motion, the Petitioner claims that his original submission provided an outline of his "services 
offerings and the strategic vision behind establishing a specialized aviation maintenance business in 
the United States," yet this statement is not supported by the record. The Petitioner has continuously 
reaffirmed his intent to work directly for a U.S. company, and did not discuss his intention to 
revolutionize the field relying on the implementation of sustainable practices. And, while the 
Petitioner states that his endeavor statement submitted with his previous motion is complementary and 
provides the "how" to his initial endeavor, this is also not supported by the record. For example, in 
when discussing the apparent overlap of the two endeavors, the Petitioner appears to abandon one of 
the primary goals of the endeavor submitted with his prior motion. Specifically, he does not discuss 
his assertion that his endeavor would reduce the ecological footprint of aviation maintenance 
operations, including the reduction of hazardous material use, the promotion of recycling and 
reusability of aircraft parts, and also spearhead initiatives to introduce green technologies to the field. 
While this was discussed in his endeavor statement submitted on motion, the Petitioner has not 
addressed these goals, or otherwise explained how this change in focus did not materially change his 
endeavor. 
Moreover, as stated, a motion should establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. Here, 
even if we were to conclude that the Petitioner's endeavor submitted on motion was not a material 
change, he still has not established its national importance. Specifically, he has not overcome our 
initial determination that the record does not establish his endeavor will lead to broader implications, 
beyond the immediate benefit provided to his prospective employers. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our 
decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter 
of law or policy. 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 reopening or reconsideration of our decision, and 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