dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 31, 2024 In Re: 35370644 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the signatures on the 
submitted forms were not valid. We dismissed a subsequent appeal and motion to reconsider. The 
matter is now before us on a second 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, we indicated that the Petitioner presented the same arguments on motion as that 
provided in support of her appeal. For example, she asserted that the petition was incorrectly denied 
instead of being rejected and referred to USCIS' COVID-19 flexibilities, the use of electronic 
signatures, and the negative consequences of unwarranted denials. The Petitioner also indicated that 
she did not mistakenly equate electronic signatures with electronically reproduced original signatures 
and included screen shots of two signatures. We dismissed the motion because the Petitioner did not 
establish that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time 
we issued our decision. 
With the instant motion, the Petitioner asserts that we erred in our prior decision. She reiterates her 
previous arguments regarding her use of an electronic signature and reliance on relevant regulations, 
policy guidance, and USCIS' flexibilities related to COVID-19. The Petitioner contends her motion 
to reconsider "is not merely based on assertions but is fortified by pertinent precedent decisions" that 
"serve as valuable references, demonstrating that [her] case aligns with established legal precedents." 
However, she does not identify the referenced precedent decisions or otherwise provide information 
to support her assertions. Here, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not establish error in the 
most recent prior decision. Further, we addressed the Petitioner's prior arguments in our earlier 
decision, and the Petitioner's repetition of the same arguments does not show proper cause for 
reconsideration. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will 
be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2