dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Cybersecurity

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 26, 2024 In Re: 34101771 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a computer engineer and IT consultant, 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for the requested national interest waiver. We dismissed a 
subsequent appeal. 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 
combined motions. 
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 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) 
(requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
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). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the 
prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings (the dismissal of the 
appeal). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the 
requested benefit. 
In our prior decision, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the 
analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We 
explained that, although we agreed that the Petitioner's endeavor of providing cybersecurity services 
to financial companies is substantially meritorious, the endeavor is not nationally important as 
contemplated in Dhanasar. Id. And we determined that the Director did properly consider the 
evidence under a preponderance of the evidence standard. We also evaluated the Petitioner's 
assertions and evidence establishing the importance of the cybersecurity field, including various 
industry articles and reports, and explained that, because the various articles and publications did not 
discuss the Petitioner or her specific endeavor, they did not establish the prospective impact of her 
endeavor would rise to the level of national importance as contemplated in Dhanasar. See id. 
( explaining the determination of national importance "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign 
national proposes to undertake"). Moreover, we agreed with the Director that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's endeavor would result in substantial positive economic effects or otherwise 
result in broader implications to the field commensurate with national importance. See Dhanasar at 
889-890. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief with no new evidence and asserts that our dismissal "negates 
certain material factors present on argument that serve to demonstrate that [ the Director] abused their 
discretion" in denying the underlying petition. As an example of this, the Petitioner claims that we 
erred in concluding that the Petitioner relied on the importance of her industry, stating that the industry 
articles and reports "not only serve[] as evidence highlighting the importance of [her] work for the 
United States but also reflect[] her strong connection to the endeavor." Yet, as stated, the articles and 
reports do not discuss the Petitioner's specific endeavor, but rather show the importance of her field 
and occupation. While industry articles and reports may provide important background information 
on the Petitioner's industry, she has not established that her specific work within the industry has 
national importance. 
The Petitioner also claims that we ignored her assertions relating to the broader economic impact 
resulting from her employment of U.S. workers. Yet, our decision did address these claims and 
explained that, although Dhanasar does not specify a specific number of U.S. workers that should be 
hired, a petitioner should still establish that the substantially positive economic effects claimed, for 
example through staffing levels or business activity, would rise to the level of national importance 
contemplated in Dhanasar. On motion, the Petitioner does not explain how we erred in this 
determination, nor does she establish that her specific endeavor will result in broader economic impact. 
Rather, the Petitioner continues to rely on claimed ripple effects based on the operation of her business 
within the cybersecurity field. While any basic economic activity has the potential to positively impact 
a local economy, the Petitioner has not demonstrated how the economic activity directly resulting from 
her proposed endeavor would rise to a level commensurate with national importance. A petitioner 
must support assertions with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 
I&N Dec. at 376. 
And the Petitioner claims that we erred by not acknowledging that financial industries have already 
adopted her protocols, which have led to a decrease in data breaches, establishing that she has already 
demonstrated a broader impact to her industry. Yet, the Petitioner does not elaborate on how the 
limited benefit provided to these institutions resulted in broader implications to her field. Additionally, 
the Petitioner does not overcome our determination relating to the limited prospective impact of her 
specific endeavor under Dhanasar 's first prong or show that our determination was erroneous. 
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our 
appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings, nor has she shown that we erred 
as a matter oflaw or policy. Our prior decision properly analyzed the Petitioner's assertions, which 
she again makes on motion. The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by 
2 
broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of 
law or policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to 
reconsider is not a process by which the party seeks reconsideration by generally alleging error in the 
prior decision). Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision, and 
the combined motions 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