dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Airline Pilot

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 17, 2025 In Re: 34927441 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an airline pilot, 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. 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 record 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 a subsequent appeal and a previous combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider. The matter is again before us on motion to 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 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). 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). 
In our prior decision dismissing the Petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider, we determined the 
Petitioner did not establish our decision on appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or 
policy at the time it was issued, nor did the new evidence submitted with the motion establish eligibility 
for the benefit sought. In support of his motion, the Petitioner provided a personal statement that 
indicated he might consider pursuing a career in aerospace engineering in the future; however, we 
noted that a petition cannot be approved based on a speculative, possible future new set of facts. We 
acknowledged the Petitioner's arguments on motion, recognizing those that were addressed in the 
Director's and our prior decisions. Finally, we again concluded the Petitioner did not establish his 
role as a commercial airline pilot for a specific airline has the potential to impact the aviation industry 
as a whole, thus rising to the level of national importance. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision, asserting that our analysis 
failed to recognize the Petitioner's critical role in addressing the current shortage of airline pilots and 
that his proposed endeavor "aligns with national initiative and is poised to impact the national 
economy positively" - arguments we considered and addressed in our prior motion decision. In 
support of the present motion, the Petitioner relies on general assertions of eligibility for a national 
interest waiver, reiterating his contention that we failed to properly apply the burden of proof as 
explained in Matter ofChawathe. 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. We further note the Petitioner now asserts 
for the first time on motion that we did not properly consider and weigh all evidence - most specifically 
the expert opinion letters, citing Buletini v. INS, 850 F. Supp. 1222 (E.D. Mich. 1994) in support. The 
court in Buletini, however, did not reject the concept of examining the quality of the evidence 
presented to determine whether it establishes a petitioner's eligibility. When USCIS provides a 
reasoned consideration to the petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to 
specifically address each claim the Petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece 
of evidence the petitioner presents. See Guaman-Loja v. Holder, 707 F.3d 119, 123 (1st Cir. 2013) 
(citing Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir.1992). We conclude the record reflects our 
consideration of all evidence in the totality, including a careful weighing of all evidence. 
As such, the Petitioner's contentions in his current motion largely reargue facts and issues we have 
already considered in our previous decisions. See e.g., Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 
2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same 
brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board 
decision"). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2