dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Automotive Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 10, 2024 In Re: 32051373 
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 had not 
established 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. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and 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 
combined 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). 
We incorporate by reference our prior analysis in the appeal decision. By way of summation, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the exceptional ability criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) and, thus, did not qualify as an individual of exceptional ability. On 
appeal, the Petitioner asserted that the record satisfies the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and 
(F), in addition to two criteria that the Director found the record satisfies, thus satisfying at least three 
of the exceptional ability criteria. 
In our prior decision, we explained that the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) because the criterion requires "[a]n official academic record showing that the 
[noncitizen] has a degree, diploma, certificate, or similar award from a college, university, school, or 
other institute of learning relating to the area of exceptional ability," but the record does not appear to 
contain a qualifying degree and the underlying academic record does not fall within the field of 
automotive technology. In tum, we explained that the record does not satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) because the recommendation and opinion letters in the record do not indicate how 
the Petitioner has been recognized for his achievements and how his contributions to the industry or 
field are "significant," as required by the criterion. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not provide a new, probative fact to establish that we erred in dismissing 
the appeal. Instead, the Petitioner reiterates information already in the record, and he requests us to 
contradict our prior decision about the same evidence despite our explanation of why the record does 
not establish eligibility. Because the Petitioner has not provided a new, probative fact to establish that 
we erred in dismissing the appeal, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2), (4). 
Next, 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. § l 03.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to 
reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. However, aside from 
paraphrasing the language of four of the exceptional ability criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)­
(F), the Petitioner does not specify on motion to reconsider any particular law or policy, nor does the 
Petitioner elaborate on how our prior decision may have incorrectly applied such a law or policy. 
Instead, as noted above, the Petitioner requests us to contradict our prior decision despite our 
explanation of why the record does not establish eligibility. Because the Petitioner has not established 
that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued 
our decision, the motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)-(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2