dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Geology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APRIL 25, 2024 In Re: 30885259 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a researcher, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that the Petitioner 
had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us. In our decision dismissing the 
appeal, we agreed with the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner met the first prong of the analytical 
framework described in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
We nonetheless dismissed the appeal, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that she is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor under the second prong. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&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. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, "new facts" are 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 application. 
Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 
"new facts." Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the 
latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5( a)(l )(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy 
the aforementioned requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to continue working as a scientific 
researcher in the field of geology. The Petitioner seeks to support the training of new researchers and 
geoscientists in addition to working in the field of research. In our decision, while we concluded that 
the Petitioner met the underlying EB-2 classification and the first prong, we noted why the Petitioner 
failed to meet the second prong of the analytical framework set forth in Dhanasar. We further 
explained how the Petitioner had not demonstrated that she is well positioned to advance her proposed 
endeavor. In support of her motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits a letter explaining how her 
academic background and professional experience demonstrate her eligibility to advance her proposed 
endeavor and provides additional information related to her endeavor. The Petitioner also submits 
two letters ofrecommendation. Although the authors praise the Petitioner's professionalism, they fail 
to discuss the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and whether she is well positioned to advance her 
endeavor. Moreover, one of the authors' usage of inconsistent gender pronouns when referring to the 
Petitioner calls into question the care with which the letter was prepared. 
The Petitioner asserts that her motion to reopen "has met all the necessary requirements to reopen the 
case." We disagree. The Petitioner's motion does not address our specific determinations and 
conclusions or establish that they were in error. Instead, the Petitioner reiterates her professional 
experience and why she believes she is a recognized and an excellent geologist. Although we 
acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and the additional documents she provides, the Petitioner has 
not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the 
proceedings nor explained how we erroneously denied her appeal. The Petitioner has not offered new 
evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our appellate decision. 
For the reasons explained above, we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to reopen. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2