dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 30, 2024 In Re: 32517570 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and coach specialist, seeks classification as an individual of 
exceptional ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l l 53(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is 
attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to 
do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
established that he qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability, he did not demonstrate that a waiver 
of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We 
dismissed a subsequent 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). 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 of Coelho, 20 
l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the 
outcome). 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits a brief explaining how he meets the criteria for the 
requested classification, his resume, and an additional copy of his business plan. On motion to 
reconsider, the Petitioner does not address our prior decision, or allege that our prior decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued the decision. 
In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong of the analytical framework in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), to 
adjudicate national interest waiver petitions. We found the Petitioner did not establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. See id. at 889 (providing in relevant part that, to establish 
eligibility for a national interest waiver, the petitioner must establish that their specific proposed 
endeavor has national importance). We addressed the Petitioner's contentions that he is "a revered 
professional for his leadership and specialized knowledge in training and development," and that his 
"vast experience in the field will significantly contribute to the nation's economy." However, we 
concluded that, as determined by the Director, the Petitioner had not determined that the proposed 
endeavor is of national importance. We determined that the evidence provided by the Petitioner did 
not suggest that the Petitioner's skills differ from or improve upon those already available in the United 
States. Nor did the evidence demonstrate that the use of the Petitioner's experience would reach 
beyond benefitting his own company and clients or have broader implications in the field of business 
development and training. We further concluded that the Petitioner's business plan did not 
demonstrate that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ 
U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation. On motion, the 
Petitioner does not identify any specific misapplication of law or policy in these determinations. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, he did 
not state new facts as they relate to our prior decision. The evidence submitted largely repeats what 
was already included in the record, and the business plan and resume again do not show that his 
potential endeavor will have broader implications at a level of national importance, or that the 
endeavor would impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. 
Therefore, 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. 
2