dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Advising

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 07, 2023 In Re: 29180216 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial advisor, 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 that he merited a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. We dismissed a 
subsequent appeal. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
In our most recent decision on appeal, we noted that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor involved the 
creation of a company which would pursue two lines of business: business consulting "focused on 
international trade between the United States and Brazil," and hospital consulting providing expertise 
in the area of patient blood management (PBM). Regarding the PBM line of business, we noted that 
the record showed that this is a health care strategy implemented by medical institutions and related 
entities, rather than business and financial consultants such as the Petitioner. We concluded that the 
evidence did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have broader implications, 
but would instead primarily benefit the business' employees and clients and thus have a limited 
prospective economic impact. 
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 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits emails regarding a presentation he made to a small group at a 
hospital regarding blood transfusions, as well as correspondence relating to his membership in the 
Society for the Advancement of Patient Blood Management (SABM) and its annual conference. 
Another new document submitted on motion is a letter from a company in I I expressing 
interest in partnering with the Petitioner's company for its entry into the U.S. market. The Petitioner 
asserts that these new facts establish eligibility, as they show the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. 
We first note that this evidence relates to facts and events which occurred well after the petition was 
filed on January 26, 2021. Specifically, the evidence shows that the Petitioner gave his presentation 
on blood transfusion onl l 2023, and was welcomed as a member of SABM on I l 2023. 
In addition, the letter expressing interest in doing business with the Petitioner is dated May 22, 2023. 
While these are new facts and thus meet the requirements for a motion to reopen, any new facts 
submitted with a motion must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); see 
also Matter ofIzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N 
Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm'r 1971). As all of these facts or events occurred more than two years after 
the petition was filed, they do not help to establish the Petitioner's eligibility. 
In addition, even if we were to consider these new documents on motion, the Petitioner does not 
explain in his brief how this evidence establishes the national importance of his proposed endeavor, 
which was the only issue on which our previous decision focused. While his SABM membership and 
presentation support to some extent his positioning to advance his proposed endeavor under the second 
prong of the Dhanasar framework, they do not show the potential broader implications of his work 
under the first prong. Further, it is not clear that the Petitioner provided business consulting services 
at the hospital where he spoke, as his business plan proposes, because the emails refer to his "expertise 
in clinical strategies." And even if the letter from the Brazilian company did provide details about the 
proposed collaboration, which it does not, it also does not serve to show that the impact of the proposed 
endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner's company's employees, clients and business partners 
to have a broader impact on the field of financial consulting. 
For the reasons discussed above, the new facts presented with the Petitioner's motion to reopen are 
insufficient to overcome the conclusions in our appeal decision. 
Turning to the motion to reconsider, in general it 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 generally asserts that the Director's decision did not properly consider the 
evidence in the record, but as noted above, on motion our review is limited to our latest decision. The 
Petitioner does not specifically identify an instance where our latest decision (or even the Director's 
decision) disregarded material evidence. In addition, while the Petitioner alleges that previously 
submitted documents "were not properly analyzed by the Service, violating the Fourth Amendment of 
the Constitution of the United States of America," the Fourth Amendment in part prohibits 
"unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. TV. The brief' s citation to the Fourth 
2 
Amendment is not relevant to the matter at hand as the Petitioner has not explained how we violated 
the Fourth Amendment in dismissing the appeal. Citing to an authority that is not relevant to the 
grounds of the unfavorable decision will not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. See 
Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("A motion to reconsider is not a mechanism by 
which a party may file a new brief before the Board raising additional legal arguments that are 
unrelated to those issues raised before the Immigration Judge and on appeal."). Similarly, the 
Petitioner reminds us of the preponderance of the evidence standard of review without detailing how 
our prior decision incorrectly applied that standard. As such, the Petitioner has not identified how our 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or sufficiently explained how it was 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time. The motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3