dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business And It Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 18, 2024 In Re: 34573323 
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 and an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Workers, concluding that the Petitioner established his underlying eligibility for EB-2 
classification, but that the record did not establish he merited a national interest waiver. We dismissed 
a subsequent appeal after concluding the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his 
proposed endeavor as is required to establish he merits a national interest waiver. 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). 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 ofCoelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In support of his Form 1-140, the Petitioner submitted, in part, a personal statement and a business 
plan, as well as other documents that are listed in the Director's decision, which we incorporate here 
by reference. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor was 
nationally important; that he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and that on 
balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States, as required by the 
Dhanasar analytical framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). With 
regard to national importance, the Director specifically concluded that the Petitioner had not 
established that the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stood to sufficiently extend 
beyond the individuals he would serve and thus impact the information technology industry or field 
more broadly. On appeal, we determined that the Petitioner's evidence reflected his own experience 
and was insufficient to show how his proposed endeavor to operate a business training and consulting 
business would broadly impact business at a level commensurate with national importance, or have 
substantial positive economic effects or significant potential to employ U.S. workers. See Dhanasar, 
26 T&N Dec. at 890. 
On motion, the Petitioner resubmits a legal brief from his previous appeal as well as copies of evidence 
previously submitted in support of his Form T-140, including his personal statement, business plan, 
and other documents listed in the Director's decision. 1 The Petitioner, however, has not stated any 
new facts as is required for a motion to reopen. Thus, he has not established that his motion to reopen 
should be granted as he has not satisfied the filing requirements for such a motion. 
The Petitioner also contests the correctness of the Director's decision. He generally claims, regarding 
the national importance of his proposed endeavor, that the Director did not give enough weight to the 
significant advantages of his work to the national interest. He further claims that his work is in an area 
of great intrinsic worth and would make a great contribution to the training and consulting industry 
which impacts business and social welfare interests across the nation. Finally, he asserts that the 
Director did not accurately consider evidence regarding the projected impact of his endeavor on social 
wellbeing, the community, and to job creation. 
Initially, we note that a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior appellate 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. § I 03.5(a)(3). Thus, while the 
Petitioner claims the Director's decision was erroneous in law and fact, he does not identify 
specifically how we erred in our decision on appeal. 
Additionally, to the extent the Petitioner reiterates his claims that evidence showing the benefits and 
intrinsic worth of his work were not given sufficient weight, our review of the record reflects that we 
fully reviewed, considered, and explained the deficiencies in the Petitioner's evidence, including the 
evidence he resubmits on motion, in finding that he did not establish his endeavor has the potential to 
impact businesses or create jobs in the United States at a level demonstrating its national importance. 
Furthermore, with regard to the intrinsic worth of his work in the training and consulting industry, as 
we addressed in our previous decision, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake," and the Petitioner has not established that we incorrectly 
applied this law in our prior decision. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec at 889. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
has not established 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). He therefore has not demonstrated his motion to reconsider should 
be granted. 
1 The Petitioner states on motion that he provided updated evidence including expert letters, a detailed project plan, and 
updated achievements and honors. Our review of the record, however, shows that the evidence provided on motion was 
previously provided in support of his F 01m 1-140 or on appeal. 
2 
The Petitioner has not established that reopening and reconsideration is warranted. The combined 
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