dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Historical Architecture

--------------------
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 24, 2023 In Re: 27693331 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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, concluding that the record did not 
support a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal from that decision and three successive combined motions 
to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us on motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&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). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding ." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it 
pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen. Here, the Petitioner has not provided 
new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a book titled 
that she coauthored. She also submits five letters of recommendation from a selection of academics 
and professors. The Petitioner asserts this new evidence supports new facts that establish eligibility 
because they demonstrate the national importance of their proposed endeavor to serve as a historical 
architect. 
The existence of a permanent exhibition curated by the Petitioner at theI I is not a new 
fact. We considered ioJ°rmation about the opening of the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of 
America'sl _ in our dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal and the Petitioner's work for its 
refurbishment and e ·n a subsequent motion. The Petitioner summarizes their book as 
a descri tion of the "permanent exhibition," the permanent exhibition's "importance 
to the.__ ____ __.' and its "importance to the culture and inter-faith dialogue of the community at 
large." Because the Petitioner describes their book as a summary of the I f·permanent 
exhibition," which we considered twice previously, their book is not evidence of a new fact. 
And the letters the Petitioner submitted are not evidence of new facts supporting reopening these 
proceedings. Considered together, the letters support the Petitioner's efforts to demonstrate their 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. But they do not evidence any new facts that that are relevant 
to the issues raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding. They 
provide generalized assertions of the importance of the Petitioner's work in their field. For example, 
one letter writer drew on his acquaintance with the Petitioner since their "student days and [were] well 
aware of [the Petitioner's] competence" in their field. However, the record does not convincingly 
demonstrate how these are new facts casting our previous decisions in error warrantinr the reopening 
of these proceedings. Another writer outlined the Petitioner's contributions to the~L-----~ 
which we have previously considered in prior proceedings and are therefore not new facts. Still 
another letter writer expresses admiration for the Petitioner's creativity, talent, and past achievements 
but uncovers no new facts which relate to the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor. And 
whilst another author specifically identifies the fact that they will utilize the Petitioner's book as a 
resource in their own academic and teaching work, this fact is not relevant to an analysis of the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 
2016), we considered teaching activities and concluded that they do not rise to the level of having 
national importance because they do not impact a field of endeavor more broadly than the immediate 
effect or influence on the cohort receiving the teaching. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. So to 
the extent there is a teaching component flowing from the Petitioner's publication of their book 
summarizing their work with thel Ithat is not a new fact which would bear any relevance 
on an evaluation of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. 
All parties to a matter deserve an opportunity to be heard. But once proceedings provide that fair 
opportunity, a strong interest exists to bring the matter to a close. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107 
(1988). The Petitioner does not provide any new material, relevant, or probative facts supported by 
evidence that cast our previous decision dismissing the Petitioner's motion in any doubt based on legal 
error. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2