dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 29, 2024 In Re: 33553016 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a teacher, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advance degree, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not 
established 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 motion to 
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 
motion. 
In dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish his proposed 
endeavor satisfied the first prong under Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 
Specifically, we concluded the Petitioner did not describe a specific, proposed endeavor in the United 
States other than seeking to enter the workforce as a teacher and that the record did not establish that 
the Petitioner's teaching activities have the potential to extend beyond his students at a level 
commensurate with national importance. We explained that "in Matter ofDhanasar, we specifically 
determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of national importance 
because they would not extend beyond his students to impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893." We 
also noted the Petitioner did not support his assertion that the Director's decision was arbitrary, 
capricious, and unwarranted with specificity as to the Director's findings, the relevant legal 
framework, or the evidence in the record and that the Petitioner did not identify any specific erroneous 
conclusion of law or statements of fact in the decision. 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration; be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy; 
and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 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, 
the April 2024 dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. 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 contends "the entirety of the adjudicative record contains both specific and 
genera[l] erroneous conclusion of law and statements of fact." In addition, the Petitioner states we 
were incorrect in "stating the Director's decision analyzed the evidence of record consistent with the 
precedent decision of Dhanasar" and then proceeds to discuss the Director's decision from August 
2023. The Petitioner also reiterates portions of the USCIS Policy Manual and our decision in Matter 
ofDhanasar where the issue of national importance is addressed, arguing that "the proposed endeavor 
(providing necessary medicine and related education to underserved communities through telehealth 
innovations such as direct to consumer telepharmacy consulting work) has already been" shown to 
have "realized and prospective impact which enables and strengthens the national agenda." However, 
this is the first mention of medicine and related education. Further, the Petitioner asks that we perform 
"a plenary review of the documentation ofrecord," even though we conducted a de novo review during 
the appeal process. 
Here, the Petitioner generally disagrees with our conclusions without demonstrating how we erred as 
a matter oflaw or policy. See Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&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). In our appellate decision, we 
explained the Petitioner did not address or overcome the Director's specific findings regarding the 
insufficiency of the evidence and that the Petitioner simply claimed in his appeal brief that teaching 
English is an important profession, that he is qualified to do it, and that he merits a waiver of the job 
offer requirement in the national interest. Again, simply disagreeing with our conclusions without 
showing how we misapplied law or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence, is 
not sufficient to reconsider our decision. 
Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that we erroneously applied law or policy in dismissing his 
appeal, the Petitioner has not established that his motion satisfies the requirements for a motion to 
reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, we will dismiss the motion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2