dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 30, 2025 In Re: 35962347 
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. § 1153(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 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). 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). 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 ofCoelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In our appellate decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we agreed with the Director that the 
Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 
I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We determined the Petitioner's endeavor of operating an engineering 
consulting services company focusing on electrical engineering, electronics, and production processes 
was substantially meritorious, but concluded that the record did not establish its national importance 
under the Dhanasar framework. Specifically, the Petitioner did not show that his company would 
result in broader implications beyond the benefits to any prospective clients at a level commensurate 
with national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. Id. And, in response to the Petitioner's claims 
in his appeal that the Director's decision emphasized the employment projections and geographical 
breadth of the endeavor, we concluded that the Director properly analyzed and evaluated the 
Petitioner's endeavor under the Dhanasar framework, considering the prospective impact of his 
endeavor to the field rather than its geographical breadth. 
And, while we acknowledged the Petitioner's assertions and evidence relating to the importance of the 
electrical engineering field, we explained that, when determining national importance, we considered 
the prospective impact of the specific endeavor, rather than the collective importance of the field or 
occupation. Accordingly, we concluded that the industry reports and articles emphasized the 
importance of the field, but did not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor. We also reserved the Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under 
Dhanasar 's second and third prongs, as considering them would have served no meaningful purpose. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make 
"purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of 
L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief which is substantially similar to the brief submitted in support 
of his appeal, along with three new articles discussing the importance of the electrical engineering 
field and the field's growth potential in the next seven years. Considered collectively, the new articles 
do not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, nor do they evidence new 
facts that are relevant to the issues raised in our dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. As stated, the 
Petitioner previously provided articles addressing the importance of electrical engineering and its 
impact on various industries, and we explained that while this evidence could support the substantial 
merit of his endeavor, this evidence does not establish the prospective impact of his spec[fic endeavor. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not explain why these articles directly establish the impact of his 
endeavor, rather than the collective importance of the field. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
provided any new facts establishing the national importance of the proposed endeavor, and therefore 
he has not provided a basis for granting a motion to reopen. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts that our decision "improperly suppressed the weight of 
the robust and vast documentary evidence submitted." In support of this, the Petitioner cites USCIS 
policy relating to the evaluation of evidence, concluding that this shows the decision is in clear conflict 
with the evidence in the record and incorrectly applied laws and policies. Notably, however, the 
Petitioner does not identify what evidence our decision did not correctly evaluate, or how our decision 
was not consistent with the policy cited, nor does he specifically address the conclusions made in our 
decision. Instead, the Petitioner generally disagrees with our conclusions and primarily reargues facts 
and issues we have already considered in our previous decision. 
The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with 
our conclusions; the motion must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy. See e.g., 
Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which 
a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by 
generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). 
2 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our decision that would warrant reopening of 
the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter oflaw or policy. 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