dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 23, 2025 In Re: 35565640 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a consultant and/or advisor in the field of electronic engineering ( cybersecurity ), seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 that he merited a waiver of the job offer and labor certification requirements for EB-2 
classification. The Director further dismissed a subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider their 
decision. We summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal of the motion decision. The matter is now 
before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
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). 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. 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits a statement arguing that our appeal decision was incorrect. 
The Petitioner has not presented new facts relevant to our prior decision or provided additional 
documentary evidence to satisfy the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of 
the motion, the Petitioner relies on 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(V) and Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
884 (AAO 2016). The Petitioner argues that we erred by summarily dismissing his appeal. He states 
that his brief on appeal argued his eligibility for NIW classification and his appeal should not have 
been summarily dismissed. However, the Petitioner's appeal letter merely restated arguments he made 
to the Director and did not identify a clear error in the Director's motion decision or provide additional 
insight into his work history and professional accomplishments to establish eligibility under the second 
prong of Dhanasar. 
The Petitioner states that he is well positioned to advance the field of cybersecurity because he is 
currently employed by a "major global company entrusted with significant cybersecurity 
responsibilities" and that he has the "expertise and industry positioning necessary to drive 
advancements" in the cybersecurity field. These are the same arguments he made to the Director on 
motion and to us on appeal and are unsupported by the record. The Petitioner is employed by S-K-1, 
a paper-based packaging manufacturer. The letter of support from his employer states that the 
Petitioner is responsible for a broad range of activities related to the company's IT infrastructure, 
including maintaining Wi-Fi connectivity and applying their cybersecurity principals. The Petitioner 
has not established that working for a paper manufacturing company on their internal IT infrastructure 
makes him well positioned to advance the overall field of cybersecurity. 
On combined motions, the Petitioner generally states that we did not properly consider the evidence 
provided to the Director in our decision to summarily dismiss the appeal. The Petitioner does not 
reference any specific piece of evidence we failed to consider or otherwise demonstrate that the 
previously submitted evidence was sufficient to establish eligibility. The Petitioner, again, does not 
specifically address how the Director erred in their motion decision or state the relevant facts that were 
not fully considered. Merely reasserting eligibility is not sufficient to meet the requirements of an 
appeal and any appeal that does not specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact shall be summarily dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(V). To the extent that the Petitioner 
argues that we did not review the evidence in the record below, we are not required to identify and 
discuss every piece of evidence provided in support of an appeal. Osuchukwu v. INS, 744 F.2d 1136, 
1142-43 (5th Cir. 1984) ("[The Board of Immigration Appeals] has no duty to write an exegesis on 
every contention"). 
The Petitioner further argues, as he did on appeal, that the Director's decisions have been inconsistent 
regarding his eligibility for NIW classification. He states that in a June 2022 decision the Director 
denied on the first prong of Dhanasar but determined he was eligible under the second prong. The 
June 2022 decision of the Director is not at issue on motion. The Petitioner is required to establish 
eligibility for the requested visa classification with each new filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), see 
also Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). 
Even if we had fully considered the Petitioner's appeal he would not have been able to establish 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a 
petitioner must demonstrate eligibility under all three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. On appeal, 
the Petitioner solely addressed his eligibility for a national interest waiver under the first and second 
prongs of the framework. The Petitioner did not address or contest the Director's specific findings 
regarding the third prong. Similarly, the current combined motions do not address the third prong of 
the Dhanasar framework. Because the Petitioner has not addressed the Director's determination that 
he does not qualify for a national interest waiver under the third prong, in particular the impracticality 
1 We use initials to protect the privacy of individuals and organizations. 
2 
of the labor certification process, we deem the issue waived and will additionally dismiss the motion 
to reconsider based on this dispositive issue. See Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 
2021) (citing Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657, 658 n.2 (BIA 2012)); see also, Matter of Coelho, 
20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992). 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision or that he is eligible for the 
underlying benefit. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3