dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Dentistry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 12, 2025 In Re: 36468728 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a dentist, 
seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) classification as either 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 that the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner appealed the Director 's decision, which we 
dismissed because the Petitioner had not personally signed her Form I-140 and therefore had not met 
requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(2) that petitioners sign their benefit requests. We then dismissed 
a subsequent combined motions to reopen and reconsider because the Petitioner did not specifically 
identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision. The matter 
is now before us on a second 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
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 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner apologizes for the error that she made while completing the Form I-140 and 
requests that we reconsider her signature so her case can be reviewed, and she can proceed. She 
explains that the law firm she hired to prepare her petition instructed her to sign the form in that manner 
and even filed the appeal and fust combined motions to reopen and reconsider defending the position 
that the form contained a valid signature. In support of her motion, the Petitioner submits a document 
that appears to be an email exchange with the law firm, dated September 28, 2022, containing 
instructions on how to sign the forms. Here, the Petitioner is essentially making an ineffective 
assistance of counsel claim. 
In Matter ofLozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), aff'd, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988), the Board of 
Immigration Appeals established a framework for asserting and assessing claims of ineffective 
assistance of counsel. Dakane v. US. Att'y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1273-74 (11th Cir. 2005) (requiring 
"substantial, if not exact, compliance with the procedural requirements of Lozada"); see also Matter 
ofMelgar, 28 I&N Dec. 169, 171 (BIA 2020). Under Lozada, a motion alleging ineffective assistance 
of counsel must: 
• Include an individual's affidavit detailing their agreement with the allegedly ineffective 
counsel regarding actions to be taken and any representations by counsel; 
• Demonstrate that the individual informed counsel of the ineffectiveness allegations and 
provided the lawyer an opportunity to respond; and 
• Indicate whether a complaint was filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities regarding 
any violation of counsel's ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not. 
Dakane, 399 F.3d at 1274 (quoting Matter ofLozada, 19 I&N Dec. at 639). 
In this instance, the Petitioner has not substantially complied with Lozada requirements. We note, the 
record on motion does not include any supporting evidence reflecting that the Petitioner has complied 
with the requirements for such a claim as described in Lozada, including an affidavit detailing her 
agreement with prior counsel, evidence of notice to prior counsel of the ineffectiveness allegations, 
and the filing of a complaint with disciplinary authorities, to warrant reopening. Additionally, while 
the Petitioner submits new evidence, she does not state new facts that establish an erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact in the underlying decision being appealed. The Petitioner's 
motion to reopen must therefore be dismissed. 
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 to reconsider, the Petitioner does not explain how we erroneously dismissed her appeal. 
The Petitioner also does not explain how our appellate decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or USCIS policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the 
time of the decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. And 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. Therefore, the 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. 
2