dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 11, 2025 In Re: 35866164 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources director, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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 classification. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner 's subsequent appeal and motion to reconsider. 
The matter is now before us on a second motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
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 reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration; be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy; 
and 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). 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. 
In dismissing the prior motion to reconsider, we determined the Petitioner did not establish that we 
misapplied the law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, noting that the prior 
decision analyzed the evidence and arguments with a correct conclusion. Citing Matter of 0-S-G-, 
24 l&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006), we explained that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements of a 
motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with the conclusions of our prior decision. We noted that 
the Petitioner must specify laws, regulations, precedent decisions, or binding policies believed to be 
misapplied in the prior decision. 
In the Petitioner's current motion brief, she contends that she did not merely disagree with our 
conclusions without demonstrating a misapplication of law or policy. She asserts she "provided a 
detailed analysis of the evidence, showing how the AAO failed to properly consider the totality of the 
evidence presented misinterpreting key documents that actually demonstrate compliance with the legal 
criteria." The Petitioner also essentially repeats her contention that we misapplied the preponderance 
of the evidence standard of proof in our evaluation of the evidence. 
Here, we are not persuaded by the Petitioner's arguments. We agree with our prior decision that the 
evidence in the record had already been reviewed and discussed in the prior decisions, and correctly 
determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her proposed endeavor is of national importance 
under Dhanasar 's first prong. 
The Petitioner has not established that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We have already considered and analyzed the Petitioner's 
evidence in the petition under the preponderance of the evidence standard and found it insufficient to 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. Our prior motion decision appropriately explained 
that the Petitioner's prior arguments did not specify the reasons why the preceding decision was based 
on incorrect application of law or policy. The same evidence and assertions do not warrant 
reconsideration of our prior decision now. 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not overcome our prior decision or shown proper cause to reconsider 
this matter. 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, nor has she 
demonstrated eligibility for the requested benefit. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2