dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Historical Architecture

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 14, 2024 In Re: 32882042 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a historical architect, 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. § 1153(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 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, concluding that the Petitioner has not sufficiently 
demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of the analytical 
framework described in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed because the 
Petitioner had not met the requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider. The Petitioner also filed 
two successive combined motions to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed affirming our prior 
decisions and explaining why she failed to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. The Petitioner 
subsequently filed a motion to reopen, accompanied by supporting documentation for our review. We 
dismissed the motion, citing the absence of new facts to justify reopening. 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 I&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). 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). 
In support of her motion to reopen, the Petitioner resubmits previously provided documents along with 
an updated brief. In the brief, the Petitioner expresses her disagreement with the Director's decision 
denying her petition and stresses her proposed endeavor's national importance. The Petitioner, 
however, does not present any new facts and does not submit any new evidence. The Petitioner rather 
discusses her proposed endeavor and reaffirms her assertions that the submitted evidence establishes 
her proposed endeavor's national importance. Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's brief, the 
Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening 
of the proceedings. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 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). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner does not explain how we erroneously dismissed her appeal. 
The Petitioner only discusses her proposed endeavor without addressing the specific determinations 
made in our last decision. The Petitioner also does not explain how our appellate decision was based 
on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted a brief in support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not 
offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our appellate 
decision. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, we 
will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2