dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Historical Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21763791 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 08, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an historical architect, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition and a subsequent motion, 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 the subsequent appeal, concluding that the Petitioner had not sufficiently demonstrated 
the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the analytical framework 
described in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In our 
decision, we declined to comment on whether the record demonstrated eligibility under the second 
and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar. The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider, which we dismissed, as the Petitioner had not met the requirements for a motion to reopen 
or a motion to reconsider. The Petitioner filed a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider, 
which we also dismissed. The matter is before us again on a third combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider. We affirm our prior conclusion that the Petitioner has not met the requirements for such 
motions, nor has she established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a 
matter of discretion. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that 
the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the applicant has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, an applicant must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission 
of a properly completed Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also 
show proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has submitted new 
facts to warrant reopening or has established that our decision to dismiss the prior combined motion was 
based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. We therefore incorporate our prior decision 
by reference and will repeat only certain facts and evidence as necessary to address the Applicant's 
claims on motion. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
Initially, we note that motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same 
reasons as are petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered 
evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988)); 
see also Selimi v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 736, 739 (7th Cir. 2004). There is a strong public interest in 
bringing proceedings to a close as promptly as is consistent with giving both parties a fair opportunity to 
develop and present their respective cases. INS v. Abudu, 485 at 107. 
Based on its discretion, USCIS "has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case" and "should have 
the right to be restrictive." Id. at 108. Granting motions too freely could permit endless delay when 
foreign nationals continuously produce new facts to establish eligibility, which could result in needlessly 
wasting time attending to filing requests. See generally INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 108. The new facts 
must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with all the attendant delays, 
the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-40 (10th Cir. 2013). 
Therefore, a party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 at 110. 
With the current motion, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a portfolio that includes what appears to be an autobiographical 
statement, followed by floor plans, photos, and other design, restoration, and installation ideas for the 
conversion of an existing historical building intended for the religious and cultural activities of the I I 
__________ We acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that her proposed endeavor 
is nationally important because it broadly enhances cultural enrichment. However, the Petitioner offers 
little clarifying explanation or analysis to accompany her portfolio and therefore we cannot determine 
what specific evidentiary purpose it serves in this matter. Submitting additional samples or examples of 
the Petitioner's work, whether recently created, created prior to the filing of the petition, or yet to be 
2 
created will not necessarily satisfy the Petitioner's burden. We have already considered the type and 
quality of the Petitioner's work and therefore additional samples and examples of it would not be 
considered "new facts" upon which to sustain a motion. 
The Petitioner requests that we view the samples and examples of her work as indicative of her proposed 
endeavor plans as a whole, rather than just viewing them as discrete individual projects. Similarly, the 
Petitioner requests that we view the national importance of the Petitioner's projects as a whole, rather 
than just analyzing the national importance of each individual project. She also requests that we consider 
her entire professional track record and to recognize that if she is granted lawful permanent residence, she 
will be able to more proactively seek work opportunities. The Petitioner asserts that her proposed 
endeavor broadly enhances societal welfare because she preserves buildings that are used to improve 
society, such as community centers and schools. She also argues that the prospective potential impact of 
her proposed endeavor would be to broadly enhance cultural and artistic enrichment. In support, she 
argues that her work in historical architecture is vital to understanding U.S. heritage. 
While the Petitioner may be able to increase the number and scale of projects she undertakes as a lawful 
permanent resident, the purpose of the national interest waiver is not to enable a petitioner to engage in a 
U.S. job search. Furthermore, even if we view the projects individually and collectively as indicative of 
the type of work she undertakes, this would still not establish how her proposed endeavor broadly 
enhances cultural enrichment on such a scale as to rise to the level of national importance. For instance, 
even if we assume that numerous community centers and schools need or want the Petitioner's services, 
the Petitioner has not established how providing such services would constitute a broad enhancement of 
cultural and artistic enrichment or would have a societal impact on a nationally important scale. As our 
prior decision noted, the Petitioner has not explained how her role in the design of a cultural center is 
nationally important. For example, she has not identified how her input on the design of a center 
provides additional broader cultural enrichment that it would not otherwise have without her services. 
To further illustrate, she has not established that historical architecture services are not available in the 
United States or that her techniques are so unique and novel as to impact the field of historical 
architecture on a scale that rises the level of national importance. 
Likewise, the recommendation letter from ______ the president of _____ 
does not provide insight as to how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have a societal 
impact rising to the level of national importance. Although! I praises the Petitioner's talent, 
notes that she is a great resource, and states that he could use her expertise in his own work, he does 
not provide specific examples of how her proposed endeavor will impact society. While we recognize 
that preserving art and displaying culture must impact sectors of society in some way in order to be 
considered historical architecture services, the Petitioner has not established how her proposed 
endeavor would broadly impact society at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Whether we view each project individually or view them collectively as indicative of her proposed 
endeavor plans, the Petitioner does not address the evidentiary deficiencies we identified in our prior 
decisions. Simply submitting an additional recommendation letter and a portfolio of her work, along with 
a request to a reconsider our prior decision, does not overcome those deficiencies. The additional 
evidence submitted in support of the motion to reopen does not establish that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has national importance. Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown she is eligible for the 
benefit sought and the motion to reopen must be dismissed. 
3 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
The filing before us does not entitle the Petitioner to a reconsideration of the denial of the petition or 
the dismissal of the subsequent appeal. Rather, a motion to reconsider pertains to our most recent 
decision. In other words, we examine any new arguments to the extent that they pertain to our prior 
dismissal of the Petitioner's second combined motion. 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. 
As discussed, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision misapplied law or USCIS 
policy based on the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The Petitioner provides 
a copy of the USCIS policy manual covering the employment-based immigrant classification of 
noncitizens with an advanced degree or exceptional ability, as well as a printout of a January 2022 
USCIS news alert concerning national interest waivers for science, technology, engineering, and math 
(STEM) graduates and entrepreneurs. While we acknowledge these policies, the Petitioner does not 
specifically assert on motion that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
policy. In addition, the Petitioner does not assert that she is a recent STEM graduate or STEM 
entrepreneur and therefore, it is not apparent what relevance the news alert has in this matter. 
As with the prior motions, the Petitioner generally requests us to reach a different conclusion based 
on a review of the entire record along with the evidence discussed above, in the context of a motion 
to reopen. We affirm that our prior decision correctly applied Dhanasar, and that it was correct, based 
on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. The Petitioner has not shown that our prior 
decision contained errors of law or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the record at the 
time of that decision. Therefore, the motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider, 
and it must be dismissed. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome 
the grounds underlying our prior decision, and the Petitioner's motion to reconsider has not shown 
that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. Therefore, the 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
4