dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: General Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 11, 2024 In Re: 35078730 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general manager of a private country club, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as amember of the professions holding an advanced degree 
or as an individual of exceptional ability as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement attached to this classification. 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, 
concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. We dismissed 
a subsequent appeal and a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us 
on another combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 
375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In the present case, the Petitioner's stated endeavor is to continue employment as the general manager 
of the __________ In our appeal decision, we concurred with the Director's 
determination that the Petitioner did not meet the three requisite prongs of the analytical framework 
for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016). 1 In addition, we concluded that the Petitioner had not established eligibility for EB-2 
classification as a member of the professions with an advanced degree because he had not provided 
sufficient evidence that the positions he held following his bachelor's degree amounted to five years 
1 Dhanasar states that USCIS may as a matter of discretion grant a national interest waiver of the job offer, and thus of the 
labor certification, to a petitioner classified in the EB-2 category if they demonstrate that (1) the noncitizen's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance, (2) the noncitizen is well positioned to advance the proposed 
endeavor, and (3) that on balance it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and 
thus of a labor certification. 
of progressive experience in his field of media arts or that he was an individual of exceptional ability. 
In denying the Petitioner's subsequent motion, we determined that the Petitioner's new evidence did 
not overcome our determination that he did not establish eligibility for the EB-2 classification as a 
member of the professions with a bachelor's degree and five years of progressive experience in his 
field,2 the national importance of his endeavor, or his positioning to execute the proposed endeavor. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief, a letter of recommendation from a former chief executive 
officer of the _____________ where the Petitioner worked from 2004 to 
2008; a letter of recommendation from the co-founder ofI I where the Petitioner worked 
for one year; and an article from the Korea IT Times publication which includes a quote from the 
Petitioner. He asserts that these documents provide sufficient evidence that he has five years 
progressive experience in the field of media arts and support his contention that his proposed endeavor 
to continue employment as general manager of thel lmeets the standard for the national interest 
waiver. 
Even assuming arguendo that the Petitioner's evidence submitted on this second motion contains 
sufficient detail to establish that he accumulated five years of progressive experience in his field, with 
respect to meeting the three requisite prongs of the Dhanasar framework - with each prong being an 
independent ground of eligibility for the EB-2 classification -the Petitioner does not provide any new 
evidence or arguments which overcome our prior determination, but instead, he reiterates his prior 
arguments. We note here that while the Petitioner argues that the new evidence regarding his five 
years of experience in his field establish that "he is well positioned to contribute to more significant 
economic growth that is of national importance," as we emphasized in our prior decisions, the record 
does not sufficiently link the field of the Petitioner's educational credential in media arts with the 
performance of general management duties for corporations - and even if they were linked, this would 
not demonstrate the Petitioner's positioning to advance his endeavor because simply having education, 
skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed 
endeavor. 
As the Petitioner's arguments on motion do not directly address the deficiencies identified in our prior 
decision regarding the national importance of his endeavor, whether he is well positioned to advance 
the proposed endeavor, and whether on balance it would be in the best interest of the United States to 
waive the job offer and labor certification requirements, the Petitioner has not established that our 
prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy as required for a motion to 
reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. 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). 
2 In our prior decision, we determined that the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of five years of progressive 
experience in the field of media arts because his employment letters did not contain a description of his job duties as 
required by regulations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(g)(1). 
2 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3