dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Civil Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 14, 2025 In Re: 36168384 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a construction manager and civil engineer, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or, in the 
alternative, as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act section 203(b)(2), 
8 U.S.C. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition and we dismissed a subsequent appeal. 
We dismissed a subsequent combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider because the 
Petitioner untimely submitted it. We then dismissed a second combined motion to reopen and motion 
to reconsider because the Petitioner did not establish we erred by dismissing the prior combined 
motion to reopen and motion to reconsider as untimely. The matter is now before us on a third 
combined motion to reopen and 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 
combined motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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 of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
We incorporate by reference our analysis in the prior combined motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider decision. By way of summation, we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal in October 2023, 
and we served the Petitioner our decision by mail. Service of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services' (USCIS) decisions by mail is complete upon mailing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b ). In January 2024, 
USCIS received the Petitioner's Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, at the proper filing 
location, indicating that it was a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider our decision on 
the appeal. We dismissed the combined motion because USCIS received it more than 33 days after 
we sent the underlying decision on the appeal, citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(l), 103.8(b). We then 
dismissed the Petitioner's second combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider because it did 
not establish we erred by dismissing the prior combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider as 
untimely. 
Now, on motion to reopen, the Petitioner neither addresses the basis for which we dismissed the prior 
combined motion nor supports the instant motion with new documentary evidence. Rather, the third 
combined motion purports to "include[] additional evidence and detailed analysis substantiating my 
eligibility and clarif1y] points in the initial submission." Because the current motion to reopen neither 
states new facts material to the basis for which we dismissed the second combined motion­
speci fically, whether we erred by concluding the first combined motion was untimely-nor is 
supported with new documentary evidence, it does not satisfy the requirements of a motion to reopen 
and it will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(2), (4). 
Next, 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. § l 03.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to 
reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
As noted above, the Petitioner does not address the basis for which we dismissed the prior combined 
motion and, thus, does not establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that it was incorrect based on evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or policy at the time we issued our decision on the immediately preceding combined 
motion, the current motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(3)-(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2