dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Geology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 30, 2024 In Re: 34290064 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a geologist, 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. § 1l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidentiary requirements for EB-5 classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability. The Director further concluded that the Petitioner did not establish 
his eligibility for a national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The Petitioner then 
filed a motion to reopen the dismissed appeal. We dismissed that motion. The matter is now before 
us on a second motion to reopen. 
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 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence demonstrating 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit at the time the petition was filed. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(2). 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 proceeding, which includes within the original 
petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not 
constitute "new facts." A motion to reopen that does not satisfy the applicable requirements must be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence and arguments to the 
extent they pertain to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reconsider. 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). 
We dismissed the Petitioner's previous motion to reopen for three reasons. First, we explained that 
the Petitioner's submission of documentation previously included in the record did not constitute "new 
facts." Second, while we recognized that his submission of his placement in an eighth-grade 
Geography Olympiad constituted a new fact presented as evidence that he met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), we pointed out that he did not provide an explanation of how that evidence 
satisfied the criterion; the Petitioner did not explain how his placement in the Geography Olympiad 
amounted to recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field from 
peers, governmental entities, or professional or business organizations. 
Third, we addressed the Petitioner's claim that he met the requirements of the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) concerning licensure or certification, as well as at the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(iii), which he claimed to satisfy based on comparable evidence. We explained that, 
concerning the requirements of a motion to reopen, "new facts" must pertain to new information 
associated with the eligibility claims a filing party presented in their most recent filing, and that new 
bases for eligibility are distinct from the type of"new facts" the regulation references. New eligibility 
claims advanced for the first time to an administrative appellate body, even at the motion-to-reopen 
stage, are not properly before us. 1 We determined that the motion and supporting evidence did not 
overcome our decision to dismiss the Petitioner's appeal and dismissed the motion to reopen. 
In support of the current motion, the Petitioner submits documentation previously submitted, including 
a business plan describing his intention to develop a web application that would function as a digital 
education tool for the identification of rocks and minerals. The Petitioner also submits webpages from 
appstoreconnect.arple.com depicting al IApp Report." The report shows data and reviews 
of the I web application from May and June of 2024. A petitioner must meet all the 
eligibility requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b ). As the present petition 
was filed in 2021, this documentation cannot be considered as evidence to support the petition or as 
new pertinent facts upon which to base the reopening of his case. 
In addition to the web application information, the Petitioner submits a new letter of support that 
references his completion of an online course through HarvardX; we note that the completion 
certificate for this course-as well as the certificates for several other courses-are all dated 2022, 
which post-date the petition's filing date of 2021. We also observe that this new letter, like the 
previously submitted letters of support, highlights the Petitioner's understanding of geology and 
computer programming languages. And like the earlier letters, this letter also refers to other web 
applications that the Petitioner has developed-a claim that is not supported by any corroborating 
evidence in the record. This information does not constitute "new facts," as the record already contains 
letters of support and statements from the Petitioner describing his education and purported software 
development experience. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The documentation submitted on motion is a 
repackaging of material that has been previously submitted in this case; the documentation does not 
provide us with new pertinent information that warrants reopening the Petitioner's case. As such, we 
have no basis to reopen our prior decision. 
1 Matter of M-F-O-, 28 I&N Dec. 408,410 n.4 (BIA 2021) (refusing to consider an appellant's humanitarian claims that 
were presented for the first time to an appellate body). 
2 
Because the Petitioner has not met the requirements of a motion to reopen at 8 C.F.R. § l 03.5(a)(2), 
the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3