dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUGUST 29, 2024 In Re: 33837207 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in business consulting, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as an advanced degree professional, 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 qualified 
for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but he did not establish 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 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 ofCoelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
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 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), to 
adjudicate national interest waiver petitions. We concluded 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). 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner does not assert any new facts and does not submit any new 
evidence. His submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner claims his proposed endeavor has national importance because 
it will make numerous significant contributions to the United States. The Petitioner submits tables 
listing the claimed contributions and their implications for national importance. The Petitioner also 
summarizes the letter of a professor he submitted which expressed the professor's opinion that the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance. The Petitioner further lists articles which he 
claims demonstrate how his company significantly contributes to United States' economic and 
strategic interests. The Petitioner then discusses his experience with internationalization of 
companies, financial consulting, and his support of small and medium-sized businesses in the United 
States. The Petitioner also claims his company will have positive impacts in economically depressed 
areas in Florida. The Petitioner concludes by summarizing his training methodology and claims his 
training services empower individuals and equip companies in the United States to compete and thrive 
in a global economy. 
While he claims his proposed endeavor has national importance, the Petitioner does not identify any 
incorrect application oflaw or policy in our prior decision on appeal. For example, the Petitioner does 
not specify any portion of our prior decision that misapplied the statute, regulations or precedent 
decisions. Without any identification of error in our prior decision, the Petitioner's submission does 
not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner's submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. On motion to 
reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy based on the record 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