dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Educational Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 17, 2024 In Re: 34598572 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 their eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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. 
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 appellate 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). 
Specifically, we explained that the record did not establish his proposed endeavor of partnering with 
American universities to market and promote their courses through e-leaming on his online platform 
would result in broader implications to the field at a level commensurate with national importance 
contemplated in Dhanasar. Id. And, while we acknowledged the Petitioner's assertions that his 
endeavor aligned with federal initiatives aimed at improving student outcomes and promoting 
innovation in higher education through the use of technology, we explained that he did not provide 
sufficient information or evidence establishing how his endeavor would meaningfully impact these 
initiatives on a level commensurate with national importance. Additionally, we acknowledged the 
Petitioner's assertions on appeal that his endeavor would result in economic benefits due to a claimed 
increase of educated students, but we concluded that the Petitioner had not shown his specific endeavor 
had a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise result in substantial positive economic 
effects discussed in Dhanasar. Id. at 890. We also agreed with the Director's discussion regarding 
the limited information presented in the Petitioner's business plan relating to the prospective 
employment of U.S. workers and the company's economic impact. 
On motion, the Petitioner generally disagrees with our prior decision, asserting that "there were errors 
of fact and law." As an example of this, the Petitioner points to our agreement with the Director's 
determination that the business plan did not provide information relating to the company's projected 
employment, its prospective businesses partners and clients, the anticipated growth of the business, or 
the location where the Petitioner intended to operate his business. The Petitioner indicates that, in 
making these conclusions we did not address the letter of intent submitted in response to the Director's 
request for evidence (RFE), which the Petitioner claims provided detailed financial and employment 
projections, and showed his company is "financial viab[le]." 
However, while we acknowledge the letter of intent provided in response to the RFE provides 
projected revenue based on the prospective partnership with a Florida marketing agency, the Petitioner 
did not explain how these projections, even if realized, would result in substantially positive economic 
effects contemplated in Dhanasar. Although 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 his proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. Similarly, 
the letter of intent does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these financial and 
employment projections, beyond a passing reference to a conversion rate determined based on the 
Petitioner's experience. And even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were 
sufficiently explained, they do not establish that his company would operate on a scale rising to the 
level of national importance. 
The Petitioner also states that, following the denial of his petition, he registered his company in the 
state of Florida, claiming that "this development addresses the concerns raised regarding the 
operational base of [the company]." But a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 
8 C.F .R. § 103.2(b )(12). And, as stated, a motion to reconsider must establish that 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). 
Accordingly, we will not consider the Petitioner's registration of his company as this occurred after 
the denial of his petition. 1 
On motion, the Petitioner also claims that the evidence submitted, including the letter of intent from 
the prospective business partner based in the state of Florida, "demonstrates a clear interest in 
developing this project [ with the initial goal] to reach local educational institutions and those in 
[ c ]entral Florida." However, potential interest from a company based in Florida did not establish that 
Petitioner's company would be based in Florida, nor did the Petitioner claim this on appeal. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown that we erred in concluding that the record did not establish 
1 Moreover, we generally do not "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 176 (citing Matter ofBardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981)). Ultimately, to be meritorious in fact, 
a petition must meet the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval as of the date it was filed. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 
541 F.3d 257,261 (4th Cir. 2008). 
2 
where the Petitioner intended to base his company, which 1s relevant to our evaluation of the 
prospective economic benefits of his endeavor. 
The Petitioner also restates the offerings of his company, which he claims distinguishes his company 
from traditional online program managers (OPMs), asserting that his company will offer "a unique set 
of services that support education institutions." However, the services outlined on motion do not 
overcome our conclusion that the Petitioner has not shown that his company will impact the field more 
broadly, rather than only benefiting his direct customers and clients. Accordingly, the Petitioner has 
not shown that we erred in concluding that the record did not establish the national importance of his 
endeavor as contemplated in Dhanasar. See Dhanasar at 888-889. 
Here, because the Petitioner has not demonstrated how we erred as a matter of law or policy, his 
motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). See 
Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (confirming that a person cannot satisfy the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider by generally alleging error in the prior decision, rather the 
filing party "must specify the factual and legal issues" that were decided in error). Consequently, we 
have no basis for reconsideration of our decision, and the Petitioner's motion will be dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3