dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 15, 2024 In Re: 34638626 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business development specialist, 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 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 did not 
demonstrate his eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent 
appeal. The matter is now before us on motion to 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 
motion. 
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. 
We incorporate by reference our prior analysis in the appeal decision. By way of summation, the 
Petitioner generally proposes to provide business development services to companies in the textile, 
food, and automotive industries, although the record does not clarify whether the Petitioner intends to 
be employed by such companies or he intends to operate a consulting services company, providing 
such services to clients. We observed that "the record does not contain information or evidence 
regarding any projected direct economic impacts or job creation attributable to the Petitioner's future 
work within the context of his specific proposed endeavor." We noted that neither the professional 
plan the Petitioner submitted nor the remainder of the record "explain[] the expected scope of his 
intended consulting activities or otherwise support his general claim that his proposed endeavor would 
have potential positive economic effects at a level commensurate with national importance." 
Moreover, we informed the Petitioner, "A shortage of qualified professionals alone does not render 
the work of an individual business development specialist or consultant nationally important under the 
Dhanasar precedent decision." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Therefore, 
we concluded the record does not establish the proposed endeavor will have national importance, as 
contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. at 889-90. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner generally asserts that we "made erroneous conclusions 
concerning the application of immigration law and [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS)] policy." However, despite broadly "suggest[ing] that there is a legitimate concern that legal 
principles or USCIS policies have been misinterpreted or misapplied in my case," the Petitioner does 
not identify any particular USCIS policy that our prior decision may have misinterpreted or 
misapplied. In tum, the Petitioner agrees on motion to reconsider that "USCIS has correctly cited the 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)" in our prior analysis. The Petitioner reasserts 
that we should conclude that he is eligible for a national interest waiver, despite our detailed analysis 
explaining why the record does not satisfy the Dhanasar framework in our decision on the appeal, 
summarized above. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner does not otherwise identify a law or 
USCIS policy that we may have misapplied, nor does he explain how our decision was incorrect based 
on the record of proceedings at the time of the decision, beyond requesting us to reach a contrary 
conclusion. 
Because 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, the motion to reconsider will be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)-(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2