dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 3, 2024 In Re: 34333346 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established 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. The matter is now 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 l&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). We may grant a motion that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested benefit. 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). 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016). We explained that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. In addition, we withdrew the Director's determination that the Petitioner was well positioned 
to advance the proposed endeavor under the second prong ofDhanasar. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we "erred in not considering the evidence supporting the national 
impact of [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor." He repeats previous claims relating to his business 
plan, recommendation letters, personal statement, and expert opinion letters, but does not explain how 
our analysis of this documentation was in error. For example, the Petitioner points to information 
about his proposed endeavor as discussed in his personal statement and business plan. Our appellate 
decision, however, specifically considered the Petitioner's economic impact claims as outlined in his 
personal statement and business plan. We determined the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed 
endeavor offers "broader implications or potential prospective economic impact rising to the level of 
national importance." The Petitioner does not articulate how this conclusion is based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. 
In addition, the Petitioner maintains that we "applied a stricter standard of proof than permissible when 
evaluating the evidence of record." Except where a different standard is specified by law, a petitioner 
must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. Under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the 
evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner's claim is "probably true." Id. at 376. Here, the Petitioner 
expresses disagreement with our analysis of his updated personal statement, business plan, 
recommendation letters from clients, company financial records, and expert opinion letters, but he 
does not explain how our specific conclusions applied a stricter standard of proof 
The Petitioner further contends that we erred in determining he had not demonstrated that he was well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. He argues that we did not consider bank statements, 
invoices from clients, letters of recommendation from clients, and his business plan. Our decision, 
however, acknowledged his business plan and explained that operating a business was not sufficient 
to show a record of success or progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor that renders him 
well positioned. 
The Petitioner also asserts that "the second prong of Dhanasar is not designed to proof the 'record of 
success' of a petitioner's proposed endeavor . . . , but its potential regarding current and previous 
similar endeavors." The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the individual. 
To determine whether an individual is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, we 
consider factors including, but not limited to: the individual's education, skills, knowledge and record 
of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan for future activities; any progress towards 
achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, investors, or other 
relevant entities or individuals. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. Contrary to the 
Petitioner's assertion, an individual's "record of success" is one factor among many that we may 
consider in determining whether they are well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner argues that we "erred in not considering precedent decisions," but he 
mentions only Dhanasar. 1 He states: "As in Matter ofDhanasar, [the Petitioner] submitted two (2) 
probative opinions from independent experts holding a senior position in academia and industry that 
describe the importance of his proposed endeavor and, more broadly, the benefits of [the Petitioner's] 
work for the United States." The Petitioner further contends that he "provided compelling evidence, 
including letters from clients of [the Petitioner's company] and its financial statements, to substantiate 
[the Petitioner's] claims," but he does explain how our discussion of his evidence was erroneous. 
1 Our appellate decision specifically considered the Petitioner's eligibility under the first and second prongs of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
2 
In Dhanasar, "[t]he petitioner submitted probative expert letters from individuals holding senior 
positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion 
research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests." Id. at 892. In addition, the petitioner "provided media 
articles and other evidence documenting the interest of the House Committee on Armed Services in 
the development of hypersonic technologies and discussing the potential significance ofU.S. advances 
in this area of research and development." Id. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the facts of 
the instant petition are analogous to those in the Dhanasar precedent decision. For example, unlike 
the scientific researcher in Dhanasar, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his proposed endeavor 
offers broader implications in the field. 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that our appellate decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or USCIS policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the 
time of the decision. Consequently, we have no basis for reconsideration of our decision. 
Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore 
remains dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3