dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Automotive Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 1, 2024 In Re: 34947563 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an automotive technician, 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 Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability and 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 the Petitioner's first combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us on 
a second 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
combined motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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 ofCoelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On appeal, the Petitioner argued that he met at least three exceptional ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F). He asserted, in relevant part, that his certificate showing completion of a 
high school-level education course, when combined with his work experience, shows that he holds the 
equivalency of a bachelor's degree in automotive technology. We noted that he did not provide "[ a ]n 
official academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award 
from a college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional 
ability," as required to meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
In our decision on the Petitioner's first combined motion, we acknowledged his assertion that we 
incorrectly concluded that he did not meet the official academic record of a degree, diploma, or 
certificate criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) or the recognition for significant achievements 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). However, we stated that he did not submit new, probative 
facts or specify how our decision incorrectly applied law or policy at the time we issued the appeal 
decision. 
In support of his second combined motion, the Petitioner argues that he meets at least the official 
academic record of a degree, diploma, or certificate criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and 
therefore qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability because the Director previously found he met 
two other criteria. He references previously submitted evidence about his service in the Brazilian 
Army and argues that it "included comprehensive training and capacitation programs, which are 
equivalent to formal academic education in the field of automotive maintenance and repair." He 
argues that military academies can qualify as college-level institutions and generally cites 6 USCIS 
Policy Manual F.5, https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual, in asserting that "[m]ilitary training can be 
evaluated and translated into academic credits, which can be used to meet educational requirements 
for exceptional ability." However, 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5 does not contain language 
supporting the Petitioner's contention. He also reiterates his argument that an independent evaluator 
found his education and work experience to be the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. But as we 
previously explained, even if this were the case, it still would not meet the requirement of"[ a ]n official 
academic record showing that the alien has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a 
college, university, school, or other institution of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability." 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A). 
Furthermore, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the 
proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the 
extent that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen. Similarly, the Petitioner's 
contentions in his current motion merely reargues issues we have already considered in our previous 
decisions. See e.g., Matter ofO-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 and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2