dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 05, 2023 In Re: 29201944 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a finance manager, 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish her eligibility for the requested national interest waiver under the three-prong framework set 
forth in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). We dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal of that decision and have dismissed four subsequent combined motions to reopen 
and reconsider. 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 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and a short, signed statement dated June 26, 2023, in which 
she generally addresses the national importance of her proposed endeavor to work as a finance 
manager in the United States. She states that she can be "a contributing catalyst of genuine change 
and reform in the financial sector" and therefore satisfies the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, 
which requires a showing that a petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit and national 
importance. The Petitioner's statement is new as it post-dates our decision dismissing her fourth 
motion; however, neither the brief nor the signed statement present new facts that could change the 
outcome of that decision. The Petitioner 's claims regarding the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor have been presented previously and have been thoroughly addressed by our office. Because 
the Petitioner has not presented new facts, supported by documentary evidence, that would warrant 
reopening the proceeding, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
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). As noted above, the scope of a motion is limited 
to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 203.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We 
may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In her brief: the Petitioner asserts that she met her burden to "famish a job offer in the form of a 
statement which indicates the [ noncitizen] is to be employed in the United States in a managerial or 
executive capacity." While the Petitioner does not provide a citation to any legal authority, we observe 
that she has quoted language from the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(j)(5) which sets forth the job 
offer requirement applicable to petitions for multinational executives and managers filed under section 
203(b)(l)(C) of the Act. As the Petitioner does not seek to be classified as a multinational executive 
or manager, the cited evidentiary requirement does not apply to the adjudication of her petition. She 
has not established that we erred by failing to weigh this evidence in evaluating whether the established 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. 
To the extent that the Petitioner presents arguments regarding her eligibility for a national interest 
waiver, her contentions merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous 
decisions. See e.g., Matter ofO-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"). Although she generally 
claims that we erred in dismissing her appeal because we "failed to consider the totality of the evidence 
and ignored relevant documents," she does not identify any specific documents or other pieces of 
evidence that we overlooked in our appellate review of the record. Regardless, the decision before us 
on motion is not our appellate decision, but rather, our latest decision dismissing her fourth motion. 
She does not make a specific claim that our latest decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or USCIS policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the record at the time we issued it. 
We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition will remain denied. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted a new statement in support of her motion to reopen, she has not 
submitted new facts that warrant reopening the proceeding. 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. Because the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening 
or reconsideration, the 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. 
2