dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Early Childhood Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 16, 2025 In Re: 35650320 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in early childhood education, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree 
as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 
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 eligibility 
for a national interest waiver. 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 l&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). 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 of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In the present case, the Petitioner's stated endeavor is to establish an educational services firm that 
provides Christian education, headquartered in Massachusetts. In our appeal decision, we concurred 
with the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish that her proposed endeavor has 
national importance, the first requisite prong of the analytical framework for adjudicating national 
interest waiver petitions set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 In addition, 
we concluded that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of 
the professions with an advanced degree because she did not establish that her degree is the foreign 
1 Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of discretion grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the 
labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, and (3) that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and 
thus of a labor certification. 
equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree or that she has five years of progressive experience in the 
specialty as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that we erred in determining that she had not 
established eligibility for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions with an advanced degree. 
However, even assuming arguendo that the Petitioner's evidence submitted on motion contains 
sufficient detail to establish her eligibility for EB-2 classification, with respect to meeting the first 
prong of the Dhanasar framework - with each prong being an independent ground of eligibility for 
the EB-2 classification - the Petitioner does not provide any new evidence or arguments which 
overcome our prior determination. 
As the Petitioner's arguments on motion do not directly address the deficiencies identified in our prior 
decision regarding the national importance of her endeavor, the Petitioner has not established that our 
prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy as required for a motion to 
reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). In addition, the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant 
to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings. Accordingly, the motions 
will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and 
her underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2