dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cargo And Freight

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 11, 2023 In Re: 27290965 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a cargo and freight agent and entrepreneur, seeks second preference immigrant 
classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as anational interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 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 although the Petitioner 
qualifies as an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the job 
offer requirement would be in the national interest. 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 apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 
While neither statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions and states that USCIS may, as a matter of discretion, grant a petition if the 
petitioner demonstrates that: the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and, on balance, 
waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. For the national interest determination, the Director found that the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong on the Dhanasar framework. Although the Director found substantial merit in the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor in entrepreneurialism, the Director concluded that the record did not 
establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance. The Director further found that the 
Petitioner did not establish he is well established to advance his proposed endeavor, and that on 
balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus 
of a labor certification. 
In dismissing the Petitioner's subsequent appeal, we concurred with the Director that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. We also found that the Petitioner had not established that the proposed 
endeavor has national importance, as required by the first prong of Dhanasar. Therefore, we 
concluded that the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest waiver. We reserved our opinion 
regarding whether the record satisfies the second and third prongs of Dhanasar, as it was not necessary 
to reach these based on the Petitioner not meeting the first prong. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support 
of the motion, the Petitioner cites to recent USCIS guidance related to entrepreneurs to show that his 
proposed endeavor has substantial merit.1 However, the substantial merit of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor is not at issue, as the Director found that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, and 
we concurred in our appeal decision. 
The remainder of the Petitioner's brief restates his assertions made in his appeal, almost word for 
word, to show that his proposed endeavor has national importance, that he is well positioned to 
advance his proposed endeavor, and that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit 
the United States. 
To establish merit for a motion to reconsider of our latest decision, a petitioner must both state the 
reasons why it believes the most recent decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; 
and it must also specifically cite laws, regulations, precedent decisions, and/or binding policies it 
believes we misapplied in our prior decision. The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion 
to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions and restating his initial claims; the motion 
must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy. See Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 l&N Dec. 56, 
58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in 
essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). 
Accordingly, although we acknowledge that the Petitioner submits a brief, we determine that the 
Petitioner does not directly address the conclusions we reached in our immediate prior decision or 
provide reasons for reconsidering of those conclusions. Likewise, the brief in support of the current 
motion also lacks any cogent argument as to how we misapplied the law or USCIS policy in dismissing 
1 The Petitioner references USCIS guidance relating to specific evidentiary considerations for entrepreneur petitioners 
requesting anational interest waiver. USCIS guidance recognizes that an entrepreneur petitioner may have unique aspects 
of evidence for the proposed endeavor, therefore, in addition to the generally applicable evidence, an entrepreneur 
petitioner may submit the following types of evidence to satisfy Dhanasar 's three prong framework: evidence of 
ownership and role in a U.S. entity; degrees, certifications, licenses, and letters of experience to corroborate claims for 
advancing the proposed endeavor; investments, commitments to invest, or future intent to invest; incubator or accelerator 
participation ; awards or grants; intellectual property held by the petitioner or the petitioner's entity; published materials 
about the petitioner or their entity; revenue generation, growth in revenue, and job creation; and letters from third parties, 
such as investors, government entities, or established business associations. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual 
F.5(0)(4) , https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
2 
the appeal. We thoroughly analyzed the Petitioner's evidence and arguments and provided a complete 
decision reaching the correct conclusion. 
While the Petitioner disagrees with our previous conclusion that the record did not show the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, on motion to reconsider, he has not established that 
we misapplied law or USCIS policy, and that our prior decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
in the record at the decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3