dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Healthcare And Life Sciences Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
InRe : 19411298 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 8, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a healthcare and life sciences management specialist 1, 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. § 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 he 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, and we dismissed the appeal. We also 
dismissed the subsequently filed motion to reopen. The matter is now before us on a motion to 
reconsider. With the motion, the Petitioner submits a brief. 
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner 's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision ." 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(l)(i) . The 
filing before us is not a motion to reconsider the denial of the petition . Instead , it is a motion to 
reconsiderourmostrecentdecision. In other words, we examine any new arguments to the extentthat 
they pertain to our prior dismissal of the Petitioner's motion to reopen. Therefore, we cannot consider 
new objections to the earlier denial, and the Petitioner cannot use the present filing to make new 
allegations of error at prior stages of the proceeding. 
A motion to reconsider must 1) state the reasons for reconsideration, 2) establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, and 3) establish that the decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5 ( a)(3 ). The 
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) generally provides that a motion to reconsider asserts that at the 
1 In his motion to reopen, the Petitioner stated that he is "currently a market research manager. " 
time of the previous decision, an error was made. It questions the decision for alleged errors in 
appraising the facts and the law. The very nature of a motion to reconsider is that the original decision 
was defective in some regard. See Matter a/Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399,402 (BIA 1991). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As we explained in our prior dismissal, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new 
facts and we may grant the motion if it satisfies the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) and 
establishes eligibility for the requested benefit ( emphasis added). In dismissing the motion, we 
discussed the submitted evidence and concluded that it did "not show the national importance of his 
specific proposed endeavor," as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis and, thus, the 
Petitioner had "not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as 
a matter of discretion." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), 2 states that after a 
petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion 3, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner 
demonstrates: ( 1) thatthe foreign national' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national 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. 4 
In the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner disagrees with our prior decision, but fails to establish that 
it was 1) based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy and 2) incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record at the time of the decision. For example, the Petitioner argues that to determine 
national imp01iance we should consider the endeavor's benefit to society. 
As we explained in Dhanasar, 
The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, 
entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Evidence that the 
endeavor has the potential to create a significant economic impact may be favorable but is not 
required, as an endeavor's merit may be established without immediate or quantifiable 
economic impact.For example, endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance 
of human knowledge may qualify, whether or not the potential accomplishments in those fields 
are likely to translate into economic benefits for the United States. 
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, we consider its 
potential prospective impact. An undertaking may have national importance for example, 
because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those 
resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. But we do not 
evaluate prospective impact solely in geographic terms. Instead, we look for broader 
implications. Even ventures and undertakings that have as their focus one geographic area of 
2 In announcing this new framework, we vacated ourpriorprecedent decision, Mattera/New York State Depmtmentof 
Transportation, 22 T&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01). 
3 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 1 7-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USC IS' decision to grant or 
deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionaiy in nature). 
4 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. 
2 
the United States may properly be considered to have national importance. In modifying this 
prong to assess "national importance" rather than "national in scope," as used in NYSDOT, 
we seek to avoid overemphasis on the geographic breadth of the endeavor. An endeavor 1hat 
has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic 
effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood 
to have national importance. 
While we may agree with the Petitioner that Dhanasar does not provide an exhaustive list of examples 
to establish national importance, he has not sufficiently established that the societal impact of his 
proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance consistent with the analysis provided in 
our precedent decision. It is also important to note that in our dismissal of the Petitioner's appeaL we 
affirmed the Director's determination that his endeavor has substantial merit citing to his explanation 
of the proposed endeavor and the "submitted information about prostate cancer, [his employer's] 
products and services, the role of entrepreneurs in driving global economic growth, the lack of an 
understanding of translational science as an obstacle to drug development, and the necessity for 
innovation in the healthcare industry." 
The Petitioner also asserts that we should consider "information about [his] current and prospective 
positions to illustrate the capacity in which [he] intend[ s] to continue to work" to establish the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor. However, we specifically informed the Petitioner that "we will 
consider information about his current and prospective positions to illustrate the capacity in which he 
intends to work." Notably, not only did he use the same language from our decision in both his current 
and prior brief, but he appeared to acknowledge and approve our consideration of this information in 
his motion to reopen as he quoted it directly, followed by the word "Yesl ." 
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the articles he submitted were related to his specific endeavor and 
not the industry or profession as a whole because "commercialization of translational research is not 
an industry, neither is it a profession, it is an endeavor or an undertaking." As we explained, however, 
the provided evidence, such as the submitted articles, "relates to the overall importance of the 
commercialization and innovation stage from research rather than identifying and establishing the 
national importance of his spec[fic proposed endeavor." (Emphasis added). 
Without more, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated the national imp01iance of his 
proposed endeavor. In addition, the Petitioner has not established that our prior decision, the dismissal 
of his motion to reopen, was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy as required by 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3