dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 17574238 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 23, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a finance manager, seeks second preference 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 although the Petitioner 
qualified for the underlying classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 
she had not established that a waiverofthe required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, which we dismissed. The matter 
is again before us on a motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. On motion, the Petitioner submits 
a brief, a letter of recommendation, and a supplemental statement. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motions to reopen and to 
reconsider. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.5(a)(2). In addition, a motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and 
be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and 
(2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As an initial matter, the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the prior adverse 
decision. Accordingly, we examine any new facts and arguments to the extent that they pertain to our 
prior dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. 
In our prior decision, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. 
See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). We explained that, similar to our 
determination in Dhanasar that his "teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national 
importance because they would not impact his field more broadly," the Petitioner did not show that her 
proposed endeavor would "sufficiently extend beyond her employer and future clientele to impact the 
financial management field or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national 
importance." 
As we explained in our precedent decision, 
In detennining whether the proposed endeavor has national impmiance, we consider 
its potential prospective impact. An undertaking may have national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, 
such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical 
advances. But we do not evaluate prospective impact solely in geographic terms. 
Instead, we look for broader implications. Even ventures and undertakings that have as 
their focus one geographic area of the United States may properly be considered to 
have national importance ... An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. 
workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national 
importance. 
Id. at 889-90. 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that USCIS failed "to follow [a] policyofproviding 'generosity of spirit' 
when reviewing applications in light of the humanitarian reasons" and "was so strict in not ... providing 
[a] 'shred of human compassion' especially in this struggling time when an essential person like the 
petitioner only hopes to continue to work and contribute to this country." The Petitioner also makes 
general statements such as, "the Petitioner's evidence includes documentation showing that the benefit of 
her proposed work has broader implications, as the results are disseminated to others in the field," but 
does not provide documentation, such as research publications, to support her claims. The Petitioner has 
not established the claimed facts with unsupported testimonial evidence alone. 
Regarding the evidence submitted on motion, although the recommendation letter is complimentary of 
the Petitioner and the supplemental statement confirms her dedication to herprofession, this information 
does not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision or establish her eligibility under the first 
prong of theDhanasar analytical framework. Further, the Petitioner does not refer to any legal authority 
to demonstrate that we erred in denying her prior appeal. A moving party must specify the factual and 
2 
legal issues that were decided in error or overlooked in the decision or must show how a change in 
law materially affects the prior decision. Matter ofO-S-G, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 60 (BIA 2006). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy in dismissing her 
appeal, nor has she established relevant new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceedings. 
The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and her underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3