dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Management / Tourism

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUGUST 22, 2024 In Re: 33568992 
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, 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. § 1 l 53(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 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 
a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a 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. 
The Petitioner proposed to advance his work as a business and content manager through his travel 
company, which would focus on providing diverse, inclusive, and accessible tourism experiences for 
LGBTQI+ individuals. 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 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, the Petitioner claims we applied a stricter standard of proof than preponderance of the 
evidence because we overlooked articles and reports providing "context to the industry and U.S. 
economy, indirectly supporting the relevance and potential impact of his proposed endeavor." On 
page three of our prior decision, we noted that the articles and reports submitted by the Petitioner 
addressed the value of small businesses and the tourism industry, the importance of entrepreneurs and 
immigrant business owners to the U.S. economy, and a White House fact sheet on promoting 
LGBTQI+ equality during Pride month. However, our assessment of national importance does not 
focus on the importance of a field or issues affecting our nation, but instead "focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. We explained that none of the 
articles or reports referenced the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
The Petitioner also asserts we overlooked the expert opinions provided by two professors who 
"unequivocally emphasize the national importance of [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor within the 
travel industry." On pages three and four of our prior decision we discussed the professor's opinions 
and explained that they addressed the importance of the tourism industry and some aspects of the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor but did not indicate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have 
national or even global implications or other broader implications on the travel industry. See id. 
( discussing improved manufacturing processes or medical advances as examples of national or even 
global implications within a particular field and explaining "we look for broader implications"). 
The Petitioner further claims we overlooked the Petitioner's business plan which "outlines a strategic 
pathway toward job creation, economic stimulation, and societal benefits, especially in economically 
distressed regions." On page four of our prior decision, we explained that the Petitioner's projected 
employment of nine individuals was insufficient to demonstrate the Petitioner's company would have 
substantial economic benefits to the United States and the record did not indicate that the company 
would substantially impact any economically depressed areas. See id. at 890 (discussing significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects as indicative of 
national importance). 
Although the Petitioner asserts we overlooked articles and reports, the expert opm10ns and the 
Petitioner's business plan, our prior decision addressed all of this evidence and explained why it was 
insufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. On motion, 
the Petitioner does not identify any specific error of law or misapplication of policy in our assessment 
of this evidence. 
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. Consequently, the motion to 
reconsider will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2