dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17574494 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEP . 15, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a financial 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 and a subsequent motion, concluding 
that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree but that she had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor 
certification , would be in the national interest. 
We dismissed the subsequent appeal, concluding that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the fust prong of the analytical framework 
described in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). The matter 
is before us again on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider . 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion . 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, 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). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
We concluded on appeal that the documentation in the record does not establish the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as required by the first Dhanasar prong. We will 
address the merits of the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider separately. 
First, our decision summarized the proposed endeavor as follows: 
[T]he Petitioner stated that she intends to continue to work as a financial manager. She 
indicated that her responsibilities include maintaining financial records, overseeing 
audits, managing the finance team, and communicating financial status reports to key 
players. The Petitioner further explained that her proposed endeavor involves "raising 
or acquiring funds ... in the most economical way, utilizing those funds as profitably 
as possible, ... planning the future investment of those funds, and controlling the 
current performance plus future development by adopting budgeting, cost accounting, 
and financial accounting." The record contains an October 2018 job offer from 
~-----------~ a private security company, offering her "the position 
of Finance Manager." 1 
In response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner presented an 
August 2019 letter froml I president of1 I 
~ stating that the Petitioner's position involves supporting "senior management in 
managing operations against budget plus strategic goals on a daily, monthly, annual 
basis, and assist[ing] in developing as well as monitoring internal policies and 
procedures' control. Also, you could help management in making financial decisions 
and analyz[ing] working capital." 
The Petitioner's response to the RFE also indicated that she seeks to play "a dynamic 
role in a modem company's development" and "to contribute to the fortunes of the firm 
and to the optimal growth of the economy as a whole." She explained that her proposed 
endeavor is aimed at "distilling complex financial data into clear, concise, and 
actionable reports that support executive decision making." The Petitioner also 
asserted that she plans to take on "the unique responsibility of managing assets and 
analyzing risks to ensure the future success of the company or organization." 
1 This letter listed the Petitioner's job duties as making accounting journal entries for financial transactions, keeping track 
of income and expenditures, creating financial transactions and posting information to accounting journals or software, 
performing general accounting duties, managing preparation and publication of company financial documents, and 
collaborating with management on development and execution of funding strategies. Additionally, the letter stated that 
her duties involve producing financial reports; developing long-term business plans; reviewing, monitoring, and managing 
budgets; helping management make financial decisions; and analyzing working capital to anticipate future cash flow 
problems. As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for her to have a job 
offer from a specific employer. However, we will consider inf01mation about her position to illustrate the capacity in 
which she intends to work in order to determine whether her proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the Dhanasar 
analytical framework. 
2 
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). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a "new" fact, 
nor does it mirror the Board of Immigration Appeals' (the Board) definition of "new" at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1003 .2( c )( 1) ( stating that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence "was not 
available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing"). Unlike the Board 
regulation, we do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, we interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised 
on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original 
petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not 
constitute "new facts." 
We concluded in our decision that "the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
stands to 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." 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or 
profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on "the specific endeavor that the 
foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further 
noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n undertaking 
may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within 
a particular field." Id. We also stated that"[ a ]n 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. 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits only one attachment to her motion brief: a two-rge letter 
dated October 2018 from the Petitioner to the president ofl which is 
now the Petitioner's employer. 2 On motion, the Petitioner describes the document as an "application 
letter with the prospective employer wherein [I] presented [my] undertaking and strategic and business 
plan in terms of financial management." The letter informs the president that the Petitioner is "eager 
to use my experience and skills in financial services to help your company and your employees," that 
she "will help you reach profitability by month eight," and that she has "extensive knowledge of how 
to manage a client's existing investments so that they obtain maximum returns" (emphasis added). 
The application letter submitted on motion, expressing the Petitioner's desire to help her employer and 
its employees by reaching profitability and to manage the employer's clients' investments, does not 
2 The Petitioner characterizes this letter as "newly discovered facts or changed circumstances," referencing Doissaint v. 
Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2008). However, we note that the letter is not newly discovered by the Petitioner 
because it indicates that the Petitioner wrote it in October 2018. The letter also does not establish how a circumstance of 
record may have changed. Furthermore, we note that, unlike the posture of Doissant, the letter does not address an issue 
on motion that the adjudicating body deemed abandoned on appeal. Id. at 1169. Therefore, Doissant is inapposite in this 
matter. 
On motion, the Petitioner also references attachments to her "initial submission" of the underlying petition, numbered 
8-15. However, because the record contained those documents at the time of our decision, and because we considered the 
record in its entirety at the time of our decision, those documents do not present new facts on motion. 
3 
present a new fact that shows the proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond her employer 
and future clientele. 
Aside from the application letter for prospective employment, discussed above, the Petitioner asserts 
on motion that "[my] track record, achievements, awards, recommendations, [ and] membership 
[show] that [my] proposed work will benefit the United States on a national scope." Although the 
Petitioner's prior work experience and accomplishments may address whether she is well-positioned 
to pursue the proposed endeavor, which is material to the second Dhanasar prong, they do not address 
how the proposed endeavor may be broad enough to rise to the level of having substantial positive 
economic effects, required by the first Dhanasar prong. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not presented on motion a new fact that may establish eligibility 
under the first Dhanasar prong. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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). We do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion 
to reconsider. 
The Petitioner does not specifically assert on motion that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application ofDhanasar or any other law or policy, based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. Instead, the Petitioner generally describes the preponderance of evidence 
standard, referencing 61 Fed. Reg. 13,064 (Mar. 26, 1996), In re Petitioner, 2011 WL 7789867 (Aug. 
9, 2011), Matter of Sao Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 1965), Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 
376 (BIA 2010), and Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77 (BIA 1989), and asserts that she "has met and 
sustained that burden." The Petitioner also generally asserts that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) "abused its discretionary policy in failing to take into account and consider 
Petitioner's statement and supplemental documentary evidence and to follow policy of providing 
'generosity of spirit' when reviewing applications in light of this COVID-19 pandemic and for 
humanitarian reasons." 
A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the nonimmigrant visa petition and must 
continue to be eligible for the benefit through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visa petition 
may not be approved at a future date after a petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts. See 
Matter of Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. 248, 249 (Reg'l Comm'r 1978). The Petitioner's 
reference on motion to COVID-19, which began in 2019, addresses facts that did not exist at the time 
of filing in 2018 and, therefore, may not establish eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l); Matter of 
Michelin Tire Corp., 17 I&N Dec. at 249. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not identify a particular 
source of law or policy for her referenced "policy of providing 'generosity of spirit."' Likewise, the 
Petitioner does not identify a particular source of law or policy that requires USCIS to grant a 
discretionary national interest waiver "in light of this COVID-19 pandemic and for humanitarian 
reasons." 
4 
We affirm that our decision correctly applied Dhanasar, and that it was correct, based on the evidence 
in the record at the time of the decision, under the preponderance of evidence standard. 
In summation, the Petitioner has not established on motion that our 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. Because we limited our appeal decision to an analysis of the 
first Dhanasar prong, and because our conclusion on that issue is dispositive, we need not address the 
Petitioner's assertions on motion regarding the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider, we 
affirm our prior conclusion that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a 
national interest waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5