dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Construction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 15, 2024 In Re: 30415046 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference 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 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish the proposed endeavor's national importance or that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer would be in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The Petitioner then filed 
a motion to reconsider the dismissed appeal. We dismissed that motion. 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 is based on new facts that are supported by documentary evidence, and a motion 
to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(2). We interpret "new facts" to mean those that are relevant to the issues raised on motion 
and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes within the original 
petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not 
constitute "new facts." A motion to reopen that does not satisfy the applicable requirements must be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
A motion to reconsider on the other hand must: (1) state the reasons for reconsideration, (2) be 
supported by any pertinent precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy, and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in 
the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider that does not 
satisfy these requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence and arguments to the 
extent they pertain to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reconsider. 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). 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In support of the current motion, the Petitioner submitted a new statement and several industry articles. 
Evidence for a motion to reopen must contain new pertinent facts. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .5( a )(2). We interpret 
"new facts" to mean those that are relevant to the issues raised on motion and that have not been 
previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes within the original petition. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(2). The new statement speaks to the Petitioner's work history and makes generalized claims 
regarding the economic impact of his employment. This information does not constitute new facts, as 
the record is replete with evidence on the Petitioner's work history, and similar assertions concerning 
the economic ripple effects of his employment. The statement is a repackaging of material that has 
been previously submitted in this case. As such, the statement's content does not provide us with new 
pertinent information that warrants reopening. 
Concerning the newly submitted industry articles, all but one was published after the petition's filing 
on January 11, 2019. A petitioner must meet all the eligibility requirements of the petition at the time 
of filing. 8 C.F .R. § 103 .2(b). Moreover, they all discuss the construction industry's economic impact 
generally and do not speak specifically to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor or if he personally is well positioned to advance the endeavor. In determining national 
importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which 
the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national 
proposes to undertake." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts or evidence to warrant reopening. As such, we have 
no basis to reopen our prior decision. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner has also not provided a sufficient basis for us to reconsider our decision. In the present 
motion, the Petitioner first argues that we applied a stricter standard of proof in his case. However, he 
does not point to specific instances of this in our prior decision. 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). Our review of the decision and the record finds no instances ofus 
applying a stricter standard as the Petitioner asserts. The motion then restates much of the evidence 
in the record and implores us to reexamine it to come to a different conclusion. Disagreeing with our 
conclusions without showing that we erred as a matter oflaw is not a ground to reconsider our decision. 
See e.g., Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). 
2 
The Petitioner further alleges that we failed to perform a totality analysis when considering if the 
Petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. In his discussion of this point the 
Petitioner expounds on two examples. He contends that we erred in stating that the record did not 
adequately establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor remained the same when he changed positions 
and that the recommendation letters are not material, relevant, or probative. In isolating these two 
points, he overlooks the rest of our analysis. Our decision on the prior motion noted and analyzed 
much of the documentary evidence, such as the Petitioner's documentation regarding his education, 
his work history, and his letters of recommendation in relation to the relevant factors discussed under 
the Dhanasar framework's second prong. 1 
Furthermore, although the Petitioner disagrees with our analysis on these two points, disagreeing with 
our conclusions generally is not a ground for us to reconsider our decision. See e.g., Matter of 0-S­
G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 58. We note our initial decision discussed our reasoning on these two issues 
extensively and we see no error in this analysis. As such, the Petitioner has not shown that we erred 
in this analysis. 
Finally, the motion states that we ignored the previously provided pertinent precedent in In re F-E-, 
2017 WL 1281865 (AAO Mar. 20, 2017). However, the Petitioner is incorrect, this is a non-precedent 
decision. This non-precedent decision concerns a metallurgical engineer whose proposed endeavor 
focused on developing safe and environmentally friendly mining practices, which could be used 
throughout the mining industry. This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does 
not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Thus, for the reasons cited 
above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that we erred in our application of the law or USCIS policy. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision, the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). As the Petitioner has also not met the requirements of a motion to reopen, the 
underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 We are not required to discuss every piece of evidence, so long as our decisions give reasoned consideration to the 
evidence submitted. See Morales v. INS, 208 F .3d 323, 328 (11th Cir. 2000). 
3