dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Aviation Maintenance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 30, 2024 In Re: 32315115 
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 anational interest waiver. 
We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on combined motions 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 motions. 
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 of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a revised endeavor statement that outlines a strategy "to 
revolutionize aviation maintenance industry in the USA by implementing advanced sustainable 
practices ... supported by comprehensive training programs for technicians adopting international 
best practices in environmental stewardship" with a goal of reducing "the ecological footprint of 
aviation maintenance operations drastically." The Petitioner asserts that this new evidence establishes 
his eligibility, as it presents a "visionary strategy for enhancing aircraft maintenance and explains how 
his "methods and techniques would have broad impact on top of [his] own benefit." 
The Petitioner did not initially indicate any intention to revolutionize the aviation maintenance 
industry in the United States by implementing advanced sustainable practices. Rather, he stated that 
his proposed endeavor was to "work in the United States as an Aircraft Maintenance Specialist through 
established projects to improve U.S. Aviation Industry effectively," and "provide aid in 
troubleshooting , diagnosing, and replacements of the aircraft." The Petitioner must establish all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time filing and 
continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 l&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). Further, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has 
already been filed in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. Matter of 
lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm'r 1988). Accordingly, we will not consider the 
Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. On motion to reconsider, 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. Therefore, the motion 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. 
2