dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Barbering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 1, 2024 In Re: 33838063 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a barber, barber instructor and manager, 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 EB-2 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 
demonstrated eligibility for the EB-2 visa classification, but 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 
the Petitioner's appeal, withdrawing the determination that the Petitioner meets the underlying EB-2 
classification and concluded that a waiver of the job offer would not be in the national interest. 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 I&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). Because the scope of a motion is 
limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy the aforementioned requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In our dismissal, we withdrew the Director's determination that the Petitioner established he was an 
individual of exceptional ability and concluded that he did not meet any of the six evidentiary criteria 
for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. See 8 C .F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). We also 
reasoned that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit, it does not have 
national importance because the record lacked evidence to demonstrate his endeavor would provide a 
broad innovation to the personal care and barber field. Further, the record did not corroborate the 
economic impact of the proposed endeavor. Because the record did not demonstrate eligibility for the 
underlying visa classification or national importance, we declined to analyze the second and third 
prongs of the analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016). 
On the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner maintains we erred as a matter of law in not applying the 
preponderance of evidence standard to analyze the endeavor's national importance. Specifically, he 
asserts that in considering the national interest prong, we incorrectly reviewed the potential impact of 
the endeavor and only focused on the impact the endeavor would have on employment rather than the 
endeavor's national initiative. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the 
preponderance standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, 
probative value, and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter ofE-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 
1989). To support the Petitioner's assertion, he reiterates that he is developing a vocational training 
program. He emphasizes the importance of vocational training programs and how these programs 
help people to learn the practical and theoretical aspects of the profession. However, the issue is not 
whether vocational training programs are a needed educational resource, but rather how the 
Petitioner's endeavor would provide this resource. His plans to provide free classes and 
apprenticeships, which, while worthwhile, lack more developed proposals that would demonstrate an 
impact on the field of vocational training. The record does not establish, by a preponderance of 
evidence, that the Petitioner's plans to create a vocational training program would achieve a national 
impact. 
Further, the Petitioner asserts that his endeavor would have national implications in the global marketing 
industry. He maintains that the company he established is "not only generating direct and indirect jobs 
but also stimulates the investment of foreign companies on American soil, generating a multiplier effect 
of opportunities and business for the American economy." Similar to the claims made on appeal, the 
Petitioner's business plan lacks corroborating data to establish how the business would achieve these 
goals. 
Regarding the motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not provided new facts or documentary evidence 
to show that he meets the EB-2 visa classification, and therefore he has not overcome our prior 
determination. With the motion, the Petitioner submits a brief, information on the I I 
and Iand an employment verification letter, among other documents. In claiming 
eligibility for the underlying visa classification, he reiterates many of the arguments made on appeal 
and in the initial filing without providing significant new facts or evidence. The resubmission of 
course certificates, letters ofrecommendation, and evidence of his salary are not new facts, and as our 
prior decision discussed, the Petitioner did not establish he meets at least three of the evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F). The motion to reopen is therefore dismissed as 
the Petitioner has not met the requirements of such a motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter oflaw or U.S. Citizenship 
2 
and Immigration Services policy. Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsidering our 
decision. Accordingly, the 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