dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources And Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 30, 2024 In Re: 32102462 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human resources and marketing communications specialist, seeks employment-based 
second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish 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. The matter is now before us on a combined 
motion to reopen and motion to 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 
combined 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). 
We incorporate by reference our prior analysis in the appeal decision. By way of summation, the 
Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the proposed endeavor was of national 
importance, and she did not establish that she was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. 
Consequently, the record did not indicate, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification. On appeal, the Petitioner 
asserted that the record established her eligibility for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the 
labor certification. 
In our prior decision, we explained that in determining whether the proposed endeavor has national 
importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016). And while the Petitioner's personal statement reflected her intention to work in the 
United States as a human resources and marketing communications specialist, she did not offer 
sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of her proposed 
endeavor rose to the level of national importance. Similarly, in Dhanasar, we determined that the 
petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of national importance because they would not 
impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that her proposed 
endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive 
economic effects for the United States. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not provide any new, probative fact to establish that we erred in 
dismissing the appeal. Instead, the Petitioner reiterates information already in the record, and she 
requests that we contradict our prior decision about the same evidence despite our explanation of why 
the record does not establish eligibility. The Petitioner claims that we did not provide commentary on 
the probative research she submitted and states that we ignored this evidence. Contrary to the 
Petitioner's claim, we are not required to list in painstaking detail each piece of evidence submitted, 
although we considered everything, and most importantly, we acknowledged that the field of human 
resources is important, as conveyed by the probative research. See Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp., 
789 F.2d 903, 906 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("We presume that a fact finder reviews all the evidence presented 
unless [the fact finder] explicitly expresses otherwise."). On appeal, the Petitioner re-submitted the 
following: personal statement, business plan, expert opinion letters, letter of intent and multiple 
documents classified as probative research. We have already thoroughly considered this evidence in 
our prior decision. Because the Petitioner has not provided any new, probative fact to establish that 
we erred in dismissing the appeal, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2), (4). 
Next, 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 contests the correctness of our prior decision. The Petitioner argues that we 
erred in not considering precedent opinion and cites to Matter of E-L-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 814 (BIA 
2005), which establishes that Board precedent decisions apply to all proceedings involving the same 
issue unless and until it is overruled or modified. The Petitioner then references Dhanasar. 1 She 
states: "As in Matter of Dhanasar, [the Petitioner] submitted opinions from two (2) independent 
experts holding senior positions in academia and industry that describe the importance of her proposed 
endeavor and, more broadly, the benefits of her work for the United States. In addition, we submitted 
a detailed Business Plan from I numerous Letters from U.S. entities urgently relying 
on [the Petitioner's] services, and probative research to support [the Petitioner's] claims." In 
Dhanasar, "[t]he petitioner submitted probative expert letters from individuals holding senior 
positions in academia, government, and industry that describe the importance of hypersonic propulsion 
research as it relates to U.S. strategic interests." Id. at 892. In addition, the petitioner "provided media 
articles and other evidence documenting the interest of the House Committee on Armed Services in 
1 Our appellate decision specifically considered the Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar analytical framework's first 
prong. 
2 
the development of hypersonic technologies and discussing the potential significance ofU.S. advances 
in this area of research and development." Id. Here, the Petitioner has not established that the facts of 
the instant petition are analogous to those in the Dhanasar precedent decision. For example, unlike 
the scientific researcher in Dhanasar, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor 
offers broader implications in her field. 
Instead, as noted above, the Petitioner requests us to contradict our prior decision despite our 
explanation of why the record does not establish eligibility. Because 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, the motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)-(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3