dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Finance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 15, 2024 In Re: 34250376 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial manager and 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 petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish they qualify for the EB-2 classification, nor did they establish they qualify for the national 
interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. 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 contests the correctness of our prior decision, asserting that we erroneously 
disregarded the preponderance of the evidence standard. For example, the Petitioner states that we 
did not provide an analysis of the EB-2 classification and then further states, our decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. In our appellate decision 
we reserved the issue of the Petitioner's EB-2 classification as the Petitioner is not otherwise eligible 
for a national interest waiver. Specifically, we stated, "[ w ]here a case warrants a dismissal regardless 
of other eligibility considerations, it is unnecessary that we address those other considerations." See 
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely 
advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C­
' 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the 
applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of proof). Here, the Petitioner does not establish that 
reserving this issue was an incorrect application of any specific law or policy, other than to say it was 
incorrect. Therefore, this does not meet the requirement of a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner further asserts, "there are multiple errors in the procedure and facts that went into the 
RFE of the petition and the Decision. Respectfully, there was an incorrect application oflaw or policy, 
and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of the record." However, our review on 
motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision, and therefore we will only address the assertions 
related to our appellate decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The Petitioner quotes our appellate 
decision which states, "the record did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor 
because its prospective impact would not sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients to impact 
the industry or field more broadly." The Petitioner states, "USCIS derogatorily and erroneously 
equates the lack of geographical implication and the lack of potential to employ U.S. workers as failure 
to show national importance." 
Our appellate decision directly addresses the geographical implication issue by stating, "[h ]owever, 
while it is true that Dhanasar's analytical framework 'seek[s] to avoid overemphasis on the 
geographical breadth of an endeavor,' a petitioner should still establish the 'broader implications' 
attributable to their proposed endeavor rise to the level of national importance." Our appellate decision 
correctly states that while we do not emphasize the geographical breadth of an endeavor, Dhanasar 
does emphasize a broader impact; such as, national or even global implications within a particular 
field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. Or that, 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 890. Although we agree 
there is no geographical requirement to the Dhanasar framework, there is a requirement of a broader 
prospective impact such that in Dhanasar, we determined that the Petitioner's teaching activities did 
not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more 
broadly. Id. at 893. 
On motion, the Petitioner primarily asserts that our appellate decision was incorrect but does not 
explain how we incorrectly applied law or policy. For example, the Petitioner highlights that their 
proposed endeavor will help minimize "corruption in the expenditure of a company's money." 
However, we specifically noted in our appellate decision, "[ w ]hile the Petitioner asserts that her work 
and techniques will 'minimize the occurrence of corruption,' she has not shown how her company's 
service would meaningfully address corruption, impact society more broadly, or result in substantial 
economic effects as contemplated in Dhanasar." On motion, the Petitioner does not assert an incorrect 
application of law or policy but presents arguments that have already been addressed. Therefore, this 
does not meet the requirement of a motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner asserts that their proposed endeavor will have national implications in the financial 
industry by generating direct and indirect jobs and stimulating the investment of foreign companies 
on American soil. The Petitioner's business plan and prospective economic impact were evaluated in 
our appellate decision where we state "the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for 
the basis of these projections. And, even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were 
sufficiently explained, they do not establish that her company would operate on a scale rising to the 
level of national importance." The Petitioner does not state any specific incorrect application of law 
2 
or policy in relation to our analysis of the business plan; but states they disagree with our analysis. 
This does not meet the criteria for a motion to reconsider. The record establishes that the business 
plan was fully reviewed and evaluated based on the Dhanasar framework. 
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). The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and 
"the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). The Petitioner's contentions in 
their current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous 
decision. See e.g., Matter of O-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"). We will not re-adjudicate 
the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3