dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 4, 2024 In Re: 29700122 
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 she 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 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). We may grant motions that satisfy 
the aforementioned requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
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 shown that her proposed endeavor sufficiently extends 
beyond her company or its clientele to impact the industry or the field more broadly at a level 
commensurate with national importance. In addition, we stated that the Petitioner had not 
demonstrated that her claimed employment and revenue projections, even if credible, reflect 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects 
for our nation. 
On motion, the Petitioner asks that we "reconsider the adverse decision and reopen [the petition] and 
give full consideration [to] all the submitted documents." She argues that USCIS did not consider all 
the evidence that she had submitted with the petition and, later, in response to a request for evidence. 
The Petitioner asserts that "those documents were not properly analyzed by the Service, violating the 
Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America." The Fourth Amendment in 
part prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. We conclude the 
Petitioner's citation to the Fourth Amendment is not relevant to the matter at hand as she has not 
explained how we violated the Fourth Amendment in dismissing her appeal. Citing to an authority 
that is not relevant to the grounds of the unfavorable decision will not meet the requirements of a 
motion to reconsider. See Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("A motion to reconsider 
is not a mechanism by which a party may file a new brief ... raising additional legal arguments that 
are unrelated to those issues raised before the Immigration Judge and on appeal."). 
The Petitioner's motion does not address our specific determinations or establish that they were in 
error. Instead, the Petitioner makes vague and general assertions that USCIS disregarded unspecified 
evidence. Such assertions do not establish that our appellate decision was incorrect, and do not oblige 
us to re-adjudicate the appeal de novo. The Petitioner does not identify any specific documents or 
other pieces of evidence that we overlooked in our appellate review of the record, and she does not 
explain how discussion or consideration of those materials would have changed the outcome of our 
July 2023 decision. She therefore has not demonstrated that our appellate decision was based on an 
incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
in the record at the time of the decision. In addition, the Petitioner has not offered new evidence or 
facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our appellate decision. 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings , nor has she shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the 
motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains 
dismissed, and her underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2