dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Content Analysis

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 06, 2023 In Re: 29259251 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a bilingual content analyst, seeks second preference immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for 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 
combined motion to reopen and 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 
motions. 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor 
satisfied the national importance aspect of the first prong under Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 
884, 889 (AAO 2016). Specifically, we concluded the Petitioner did not show how her endeavor 
would have broader implications in the field or would have significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or other substantial positive economic effects. Accordingly, we decided further analysis of 
her qualification under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful 
purpose and reserved those issues. 
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. 
On motion, the Petitioner summarizes her prior arguments and our determinations in our appeal 
decision. In addition, the Petitioner points to evidence, such as her business plan, which we addressed 
in our decision. See Matter of O-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). Here, our previous decision analyzed 
and explained why the indicated evidence and claimed arguments did not meet the first prong under 
the Dhanasar framework. The Petitioner did not establish that we incorrectly applied law, policy, or 
precedent in our decision dismissing her appeal. Disagreeing with our conclusions without showing 
how we erred as a matter of law or pointing to policy or precedent that contradicts our analysis of the 
evidence is not a ground to reconsider our decision. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that her motion satisfies the requirements for a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Therefore, we will dismiss her motion to reconsider. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§103.5(a)(2). See Matter o_f Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence 
have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a recent job offer letter for an online interpreter and argues that 
"language barriers still exist in the United States and I would very much like to serve the national 
interest in providing services that improve communications and businesses that have those concerns." 
For the same reasons discussed in our prior decision, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her 
particular services as an online interpreter would have broader implications for our country rather than 
limited to the customers she would prospectively serve over the phone. Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. Here, the evidence does not overcome the underlying grounds in our previous decision, and 
therefore, we will dismiss her motion to reopen. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2