dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources And Business Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 06, 2023 In Re: 29222554 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources operations and business development specialist, seeks second 
preference immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as 
an individual of exceptional ability, 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 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 a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a 
motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor satisfied 
the national importance aspect of the first prong under Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016). Specifically, we concluded the Petitioner did not show how his endeavor would have 
broader implications in the field or would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other 
substantial positive economic effects. Accordingly, we decided further analysis of his qualification 
under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose and 
reserved those issues. 
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. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that we did not review the totality of the evidence and points to his 
personal statement, business plan, expert opinion letters, and probative research. The Petitioner 
references our determinations, copies portions of his personal statement, business plan, expert opinion 
letters, and probative research, and disagrees with our conclusions without demonstrating how we 
erred as a matter of law or policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding 
that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, the same brief 
and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). In our appellate decision, 
we specifically addressed the evidence that he claims we did not consider and explained why the 
documentation did not satisfy the national importance aspect of the first prong. Again, simply 
disagreeing with our conclusions, or "hold[ing] a different opinion" as stated by the Petitioner, without 
showing how we misapplied law or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence is 
not a ground to reconsider our decision. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner asserts that we "applied a stricter standard of proof permissible when 
evaluating the evidence of record." However, the Petitioner does not point to specific instances where 
we required a "stricter standard" or explain how we applied a different standard of proof other than by 
the preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof 
governing immigration benefit requests. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375; see also Mater ofMartinez, 
21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); Matter ofSoo Hoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151, 152 (BIA 1965). 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that we "erred in not considering precedent [ d]ecisions" and cites to 
Dhanasar. However, throughout our decision, we evaluated the Petitioner's claims and 
documentation based on the Dhanasar analytical framework. Moreover, we referenced Dhanasar 's 
concepts and applied them to the Petitioner's arguments and evidence. As such, contrary to the 
Petitioner's assertion, we considered the Dhanasar precedent decision in adjudicating the Petitioner's 
national interest waiver and appeal. 
Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that we erroneously applied law or policy in dismissing his 
appeal, the Petitioner did not establish that his motion satisfies the requirements for a motion to 
reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, we will dismiss the motion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2