dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Compliance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 4, 2024 In Re: 34904938 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a compliance 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 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 a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. 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 
combined motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on new facts that are supported by documentary evidence, and a motion 
to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner, a compliance manager, initially sought to work as a compliance manager in the 
financial field in the United States. In response to a request for evidence from the Director, the 
Petitioner submitted a business plan stating she intends to serve as investor and CEO of a company in 
the United States to provide "specialized consultancy and training focused on [ anti-money laundering] 
compliance to U.S. companies and businesses needing secure, reliable, trustworthy safety in their 
financial operations and transactions within the U.S. market." 
The Director concluded the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of her proposed 
endeavor, that she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would 
be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification. On appeal, we concurred with the Director that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor. As this basis for dismissal was dispositive of the 
Petitioner's appeal, we did not reach her arguments concerning the remaining prongs of the Dhanasar 
framework. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
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)( 1 )(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 the Director's petition denial decision, our decision dismissing the 
appeal, a copy of Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), and an article entitled "From 
Compliance to Careers: A Deep Dive Into the AML Job." We interpret "new facts" to mean those 
that are relevant to the issues raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the 
proceedings, which includes within the original petition. The Director's petition denial decision, our 
decision dismissing the appeal, and a copy of Matter ofDhanasar do not state new facts and therefore 
do not constitute "new facts" for the purposes of a motion to reopen. Similarly, the article submitted 
by the Petitioner on motion relates to how to "build a successful and fulfilling career in the dynamic 
field of AML." The submitted article does not mention the Petitioner, her company, or otherwise 
speak to the potential prospective impact of her own proposed endeavor. The Petitioner makes no 
assertion on motion as to how this submitted evidence contains new facts that establish her eligibility. 
As the Petitioner's motion does not contain "new facts," it does not meet the requirements of a motion 
to reopen. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
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.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the Director's initial denial of her petition, asserting the denial 
decision "was clearly incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of its 
issuance." The Petitioner claims the Director's decision incorrectly applied the relevant law, 
regulations, and policies, and requests her motion to reconsider be granted on this basis. However, 
the Director's decision is not the decision before us here. A motion's scope is limited to the "prior 
decision" and the "latest decision in the proceeding," which, in this case, is our appeal dismissal 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i), (ii). 
2 
On motion, the Petitioner also contests the correctness of our prior decision. Specifically, the 
Petitioner asserts the national interest standard was incorrectly applied, claiming our decision equated 
the lack of geographical economic implications and potential to employ U.S. workers to a failure to 
show national importance. The Petitioner contends our decision disregarded any submitted evidence 
indicating her proposed endeavor impacts a national initiative or a matter of national importance. The 
Petitioner also asserts our decision did not establish "how each individual requirement in the already 
established list of national importance criteria is taken into consideration." Initially, the national 
importance criteria referenced by the Petitioner do not constitute requirements to demonstrate national 
importance, as the list is not exhaustive nor requires each criterion to be established. In addition, in 
our decision, we explicitly considered non-economic evidence submitted by the Petitioner regarding 
her industry, including reports and articles. After reviewing the evidence of record, we concluded her 
own proposed endeavor does not rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner asserts her proposed endeavor has national importance as she intends to develop a firm 
focused on anti-money laundering compliance that will: support financial security and institutions, 
assist in regulatory compliance for its clients, defend against illicit fund infiltration and economy 
destabilization, contribute to global security and consumer confidence, and transfer knowledge to its 
clients. As in our previous decision, we acknowledge the many benefits provided by the field of 
financial regulation and compliance, including its national implications and effect on societal welfare, 
as highlighted by the Petitioner and discussed above. However, as stated in our appeal decision, when 
determining the national importance of a proposed endeavor, we focus, not on the specific area or field 
at issue, but the specific endeavor a petitioner proposes to undertake. See Matter ofDhanasar at 889. 
Here, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that the potential prospective impact of her specific endeavor 
would impact the financial regulation and compliance industries more broadly, at a level of national 
importance. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts her endeavor includes entrepreneurship, "at a time when 
entrepreneurship seems to be dwindling in the U.S." 1 The Petitioner claims she aims to establish her 
firm in Florida, where "small businesses are of paramount importance to local economy as they 
provide nearly two-thirds of the net new private jobs in state.... " The Petitioner asserts she has 
demonstrated the general positive economic impact of her proposed endeavor, and our decision erred 
in focusing on its geographic effects. Contrary to the Petitioner's contention, our appeal decision 
considered not only geographical impact, but more broadly whether the "economic activity directly 
resulting from her proposed endeavor would rise to the level of national importance." In our decision, 
we noted the Petitioner's business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of her 
economic projections, including revenue and job creation, and does not establish the company would 
1 The Petitioner also asserts on motion that her endeavor is unique due to her "diverse professional background" and her 
"proven superior performance in her field, professional achievements, and expertise." However, these factors relate to the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 890. The second prong of the Dhanasar 
analysis examines whether the petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and shifts the focus from the 
proposed endeavor to the individual. Id. As the second prong was not discussed in our previous decision, it is not 
appropriate for us to consider it here on motion. 
3 
operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance. Similarly, the economic assertions made 
on motion contain figures regarding small business economy in Florida but do not provide sufficient 
information or explanation to establish her own proposed endeavor would have substantial positive 
effects in that environment. 
Upon review, our appeal decision thoroughly analyzed the national importance requirements laid out 
in the Dhanasar framework and considered the entirety of the record in the Petitioner's case. As the 
Petitioner has not established our prior decision dismissing her appeal contained errors of law or 
policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of the decision, it does not 
meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
III. CONCLUSION 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility or that he submitted "new facts." 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 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. 
4