dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 1, 2024 In Re: 30251590 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a certified nursing assistant, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska 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 denying 
the appeal, we withdraw the Director's determination that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 
classification as an advanced degree professional and dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner 
failed to demonstrate her eligibility for the EB-2 classification and the national interest waiver. 
The matter is now before us on combined motions 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). 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." 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. § I 03.5(a)(3). 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 Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to own and operate her business, which will provide healthcare 
related online courses focused on medical terminologies. In our decision, while reserving the first and 
third prongs, we explained why the Petitioner failed to meet the second prong of the analytical 
framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We explained how 
the Petitioner had not demonstrated that she is well positioned to advance her proposed endeavor. In 
support of her motion to reopen and motion reconsider, the Petitioner submits a letter explaining her 
strong disagreement with our decision, along with additional documents. The Petitioner also supplies 
an updated business plan and course descriptions to emphasize the significance of her proposed 
endeavor as an independent business owner in the field of healthcare. She states that she plans to open 
an online school to teach medical terminologies to address the linguistic challenges in the medical 
field. She urges us to reevaluate her documents and to take into account all her submissions. 
Nonetheless, the Petitioner's motions do not address our specific determinations and conclusions or 
establish that they were in error. Instead, the Petitioner reiterates her experience as a certified nursing 
assistant and medical interpreter. Additionally, she provides more details about her proposed 
endeavor, outlines the courses she plans to offer, and explains why she believes her online school will 
expand, eventually evolving into a significant business in the U.S. Although we acknowledge the 
additional documents provided, the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate 
decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings, nor has she shown that we erred as a matter 
oflaw or users policy. 
Neither the Petitioner's letter nor her documents explain how we erroneously denied her appeal and 
only discuss her proposed endeavor without addressing the specific determinations in our last decision. 
She also has not demonstrated that our appellate decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw 
or users policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of 
the decision. In addition, 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 and motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2