dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Foreign Trade

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUN. 11, 2024 In Re: 31630410 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a foreign trade specialist providing consulting services to small and medium sized 
import export businesses, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver 
of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this 
discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus labor certification, when it is in the national 
interest to do so. See id. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies 
for EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but did not establish 
that he qualifies for a 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 ofChawathe , 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. 
In our prior decision, which we incorporate here by reference, we concluded that the Petitioner had 
not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver based on the framework set out in Matter 
ofDhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). Specifically, we determined that the Petitioner had 
not established that his endeavor stood to sufficiently extend beyond his employees and clients such 
that its impact would be at a level commensurate with national importance. See id. (providing in 
relevant part that, to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, the petitioner must establish 
that their specific proposed endeavor has national importance). We highlighted that the Petitioner's 
proposed endeavor, as documented, did not have the potential to employ a significant number of U.S. 
workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects. See id. ("An endeavor that has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, 
particularly in an economically depressed area, . . . may well be understood to have national 
importance."). We also determined that the Petitioner did not establish, through sufficient probative 
evidence, that his endeavor would have broader implications in his field that would resonate on a 
national level. See id. ( stating that national importance is evaluated through consideration of 
"potential prospective impact" and "broader implications"). We therefore concluded that the Petitioner 
did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance such that he is eligible for a 
national interest waiver under Dhanasar. 1 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision and states that his motion to 
reconsider is "fortified by pertinent precedent decisions." However, in support of the motion, the 
Petitioner relies on only Matter ofHashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009) ( concerning the beneficiary 
of a family-based visa petition and factors to consider when determining whether to grant a motion to 
continue removal proceedings until a visa petition has been adjudicated), and has not established the 
relevancy or applicability of Hashmi to his present petition. The Petitioner does not identify any 
specific errors of law or fact in our prior decision, only generally stating that we erred in dismissing 
his appeal. He goes on to state the importance of analyzing his proposed endeavor and its potential 
economic impacts, including the creation ofjobs. However, the Petitioner does not provide an analysis 
of these factors on motion or indicate how our analysis of the economic implications of his endeavor 
in our prior decision was deficient. Instead, the Petitioner generally asserts that he has provided ample 
evidence that his proposed endeavor has far reaching and broad implications for the national and 
international economy. 
A petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by making general, unsupported 
assertions about the prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Since the Petitioner has not identified 
an erroneous conclusion of law or policy in our analysis of the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor, we conclude that he has not met the requirements of a motion to reconsider or established 
eligibility for the underlying benefit. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 In light of this conclusion, we declined to reach and reserved the Petitioner's remaining arguments concerning eligibility 
under Dhanasar. 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 othe1wise meet their burden 
of proof). 
2