dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Business Process Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 16 , 2024 In Re: 31885775 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a business process engineer, seeks classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree or of exceptional ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the 
job offer requirement that is attached to this employment based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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. Id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that eligibility for the underlying immigrant classification and for a waiver of the required 
job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Director also 
dismissed the Petitioner's combined motions to reopen and reconsider. On appeal, we withdrew the 
Director's motions decision and remanded the matter. The Director again dismissed the Petitioner's 
combined motions, and we dismissed the subsequent appeal determining that the petitioner had not 
demonstrated that his proposed endeavor was of national importance. 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 I&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the record contains a proposal for a new materially changed endeavor. Submitted with the 
motion are a brief and an agreement to become the regional director for the.__ _______ __, 
in California. In the initial filing and subsequent~-----------------~ motions and appeal, the Petitioner's stated endeavor was to establish and direct the operations of 
a Florida-based entity dedicated to offering various businrs procei8s reengineering, 
improvement, problem-solving, and management services. The offer from is for a regional 
director of a non-profit professional association dedicated to the field of business process management. 
The record does not indicate how the position of regional director would be incorporated into the initial 
endeavor ofI I and without further explanation it does not appear to be part of the of the 
initial endeavor. 
A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make 
a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. 
Comm'r 1988). Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor 
of becoming the regional director of I I and will only address the initial proposed endeavor of 
owning ~-----~ Because the Petitioner has not presented new facts related to the initial 
proposed endeavor, we will dismiss the motion to reopen 1. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts we erred in our analysis of the national importance of 
the proposed endeavor but does not cite to any specific error in our application of Dhanasar. In our 
prior decision, we addressed the relevant evidence and determined the proposed endeavor did not 
demonstrate any broader implications in the field at a level of national importance. See id. (stating 
that national importance is evaluated through consideration of "potential prospective impact" and 
"broader implications"). 
We acknowledged the Petitioner's contention that broad expansion in the businesses' profitability 
across the country would increase United States GDP, create jobs and grow sales and tax revenues. 
But we determined the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his specific business would attain 
sufficient size or scope to achieve these results on a national scale. Moreover, we explained that 
although he intends to employ workers from economically depressed areas by matching candidates' 
addresses to "census tract numbers" for "low-income communities," the record did not indicate the 
business would employ enough people to significantly affect the economically depressed areas. 
Finally, we concluded the record did not demonstrate the business would introduce advancements to 
the consulting or business process engineering field, determining the Petitioner did not meet the first 
prong of the analytical framework to adjudicate national interest waiver petitions in Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). The Petitioner reasserts these contentions articulated on 
appeal, but does not identify any misapplication of law or policy in our previous determinations. 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy. 
1 Even if the record indicated how the new position would be part of the initial proposed company, the Petitioner has not 
provided corroboration to demonstrate the national impact of the endeavor either through national implications within the 
field or that it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have a substantial positive economic effect. See 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. 
2 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the 
motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains 
dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3