dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APRIL 29, 2024 In Re: 30867437 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a registered nurse/healthcare entrepreneur, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and 
thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
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 she had not established 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
We dismissed a subsequent appeal. 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. § 103.5(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 record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate a healthcare consulting and 
education business in Florida. The Petitioner seeks to provide medical consultations to U.S. healthcare 
institutions and train and coach nursing students. 
In our decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did 
not meet the first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 
884, 889 (AAO 2016). We explained that the Petitioner had not shown that her proposed endeavor 
sufficiently extends beyond her healthcare company to impact the healthcare industry or the field more 
broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. In addition, we stated that the Petitioner 
had not demonstrated that her revenue projections and potential business activity, even if credible, 
would provide a significant economic benefit to the United States, Florida, or any economically 
depressed regions such that it would rise to the level of national importance. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not state any new facts and does not submit any new documentary 
evidence. Therefore, the motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen and must be 
dismissed. 
Rather, the Petitioner contests the correctness of the Director's decision, stating that the Director did 
not consider all the evidence that the Petitioner had submitted with the petition and, later, in response 
to a request for evidence. The Petitioner asserts that "those documents were not properly analyzed by 
the Service, violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America." 
The Petitioner asks that we "reconsider the adverse decision and reopen [the petition] and give full 
consideration on all the submitted documents." 
The only decision properly before us on motion is our September 29, 2023, appellate decision, not the 
Director's April 10, 2023, denial. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), which limits the available time to file 
a motion to reconsider and requires that motions pertain to "the prior decision," which, again, is our 
September 29, 2023, appellate decision. 
Nor does the Petitioner's submission meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. The Petitioner's 
motion does not address our specific determinations or establish that they were in error. Instead, as 
with the motion to reopen, the Petitioner makes general assertions that the Director disregarded 
unspecified evidence. But again, the Director's decision is not the one before us today. The Petitioner 
has not demonstrated that our appellate decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS 
policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the 
decision. 
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 of law or USCIS policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the 
motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains 
dismissed, and her underlying petition remains denied. 
2 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3