dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 8, 2023 In Re: 28895709 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a sales director, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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 for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. We dismissed 
the subsequent appeal and a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us 
on a second motion to reconsider. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our 
authority to reconsider to instances where the applicant has shown "proper cause" for that action. 
Thus, to merit reconsideration, an applicant must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such 
as submission of a properly completed Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct 
fee), but must also show proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does 
not meet applicable requirements . See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
By regulation the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) . The 
issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established that our decision to dismiss the prior combined 
motions was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy. We therefore incorporate our 
prior decisions by reference and will repeat only certain facts and evidence as necessary to address the 
Petitioner's claims on motion. 
On motion to reconsider the Petitioner states that the Director "did not give full consideration to the 
evidence provided by the Petitioner along with the first filing and the RFE response, as it should have 
been given." Specifically, the Petitioner states that an expert opinion letter "that outlines [the] 
Petitioner's qualifications and all the benefits generated by his proposed endeavor in the United States 
was not even considered by the adjudicating officer." 
In our prior dismissal of the Petitioner's combined motions, we stated: 
[ ] a motion to reconsider pertains to our most recent decision. In other words, we 
examine any new arguments to the extent that they pertain to our prior dismissal of the 
Petitioner's appeal. Therefore, we cannot consider new objections to the earlier denial, 
and the Petitioner cannot use the present filing to make new allegations of error at prior 
stages of the proceeding. Here, the Petitioner alleges a general error in the Director's 
decision but does not identify any specific error of law or fact in our prior decision. 
The above remains true for the motion to reconsider before us. The Petitioner again alleges an error 
in the Director's decision but does not allege any error oflaw or fact in our prior decision. 1 As noted 
in our prior decision, the Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly 
disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or 
policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is 
not a process by which the party may submit, in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by 
generally alleging error in the prior decision). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not shown 
that our prior decision contained errors of law or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on 
the record at the time of that decision. Therefore, the motion does not meet the requirements of a 
motion to reconsider and must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 For the first time in its second motion the Petitioner describes the alleged error as not considering an expert opinion letter. 
2