dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Technician

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 06, 2024 In Re: 34121904 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electrical technician and consultant, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 
an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § ll 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but she had not 
established that 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. 
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. 
In our prior decision, which we hereby incorporate by reference, we adopted and affirmed the 
Director's analysis and the portion of decision finding that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed 
endeavor has national importance. We therefore concluded that she did not establish eligibility for a 
national interest waiver, and we declined to reach and reserved our opinion on the Director's other 
findings related to EB-2 immigrant classification and the remaining national waiver interest prongs in 
Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We discussed the Director's decision as it 
relates to national importance. Specifically, we mentioned that the Director acknowledged the 
Petitioner's business plan and highlighted the lack of objective evidence of staffing projections and 
proposed figures. We mentioned that the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish the 
proposed endeavor would result in substantial U.S. economic impact or job creation or that it would 
broadly enhance societal welfare; and that the Director acknowledged documents related to the 
Petitioner's field but noted the focus for determining national importance is on the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor. We stated that the Petitioner generally reiterated the benefits of her profession, her 
qualifications, and the claimed economic impacts of her proposed business; and she did not provide 
any new evidence, overcome the Director's determination, or identify any specific instances where the 
Director erred. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief, a copy of our prior decision, and previously submitted 
documents. The Petitioner makes the same and similar arguments as previously made regarding the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner has not established 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. Therefore, the Petitioner 
has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 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 Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) 
( finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party seeks reconsideration by 
generally alleging error in the prior decision). 1 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 The Petitioner has not established that his proposed endeavor has national importance. Therefore, he has not demonstrated 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. Since this issue is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and 
hereby reserve the appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Matter of 
Dhanasar. 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not 
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL­
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). 
2