dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Entrepreneurship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 17, 2024 In Re: 31974541 
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 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 Petitioner 's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Workers, concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner was eligible for and 
merited a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. We summarily dismissed a subsequent 
appeal after concluding the Petitioner did not identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact in the Director's decision. 1 The matter is now before us on 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. 
On motion, the Petitioner raises several issues related to the Director's decision. He does not, however, 
contest the correctness of our decision to summarily dismiss his appeal. As the Petitioner does not 
assert that our decision to summarily dismiss his appeal was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision, we will dismiss the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 The Petitioner submitted an appeal in May 2023 (first appea l) that we summarily dismissed. We note that the Petitioner 
filed a separate appeal (second appeal) approximately one week after filing the first appeal for which we issued a separate 
decision on the merits. The Petitioner identifies the receipt number for the fi rst appeal as the basis for this motion, and we 
therefore address only that decision.