dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Resources And Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 28, 2025 In Re: 35237354 
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 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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding 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 the Petitioner's appeal and a subsequently filed combined motion to reopen 
and motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us again 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
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) . 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the 
Petitioner asserts we exceeded the preponderance of the evidence standard and did not properly 
consider the totality of the evidence. 1 In particular, the Petitioner disagrees with our analysis and 
conclusions regarding her proposed endeavor's national importance under the analytical framework 
in Matter ofDhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Specifically, she disputes our determinations 
that her proposed endeavor's prospective impact did not rise to the level of national importance and 
that it did not have a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial 
positive economic effects. She also points to her business plan, expert opinion letters, support letters, 
and other evidence already in the record and continues to assert that the facts of her case are analogous 
to those in the Dhanasar decision. 
1 With her motion, the Petitioner submits evidence that we previously considered in our prior decision. 
The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to show error in the most recent prior decision, not to 
adjudicate the petition anew. See, e.g., 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). The Petitioner's 
contentions in her current motion to reconsider merely reargue facts and issues we have already 
considered, but did not find persuasive in our previous decision. Aside from broadly disagreeing with 
our conclusions, she does not specifically explain how we applied a stricter standard of proof than a 
preponderance of the evidence or otherwise misapplied law or policy in evaluating Dhanasar 's first 
prong. Simply expressing disagreement with an adverse decision is not sufficient to meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The Petitioner also asserts that our prior decision erroneously stated that we are not required to list in 
detail each piece of evidence submitted. She claims this is inconsistent with the regulations at 8 C.F .R. 
§§ 103.2(b )(8)(i), 103.3(a)(l)(ii), as well as case law such as Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 
1997). The Petitioner also argues, citing to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), and 
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n ofUS., Inc. v. StateFarmMut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983), that our 
"reliance on generic statements of evidence consideration" without an explanation of the specific 
shortcomings of the evidence is indicative of arbitrary decision-making. 
As noted in our prior decision, however, when USCIS provides a reasoned consideration to the 
petition, and has made adequate findings, it will not be required to specifically address each claim a 
petitioner makes, nor is it necessary for it to address every piece of evidence a petitioner presents. See 
Lingeswaran v. US. Att'y Gen., 969 F.3d 1278, 1292 (11th Cir. 2020). While the Petitioner continues 
to assert that we did not provide a substantive discussion on the specific content of her "probative 
research" and, therefore, suggests we did not fully discharge our duty to review all the evidence, the 
Petitioner does not point to specific examples of what research was purportedly ignored or explain 
how that evidence would have demonstrated her proposed endeavor's national importance, as opposed 
to the importance of her field in general. 
Moreover, contrary to the Petitioner's claim, our previous decisions adequately addressed the evidence 
submitted and discussed the reasons why the Petitioner did not meet her burden to demonstrate 
eligibility for a national interest waiver. For example, we noted that the Petitioner's business plan 
anticipated her company would hire eight employees by the end of year five and projected sales of 
$202,720 in year one increasing to $547,254 in year five. However, we determined that the evidence 
did not sufficiently demonstrate that her company's future staffing levels and business activity would 
provide substantial economic benefits in Florida or the United States. We also concluded that the 
Petitioner did not offer sufficient evidence to show that the area where her company operates is 
economically depressed, that she would employ a significant population of workers in that area, or 
that her endeavor would offer the region or its population a substantial economic benefit through 
employment levels, tax revenue, or business activity. As such, she had not carried her burden to show 
that her proposed endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer 
substantial positive economic effects for the United States. The prior decisions provided the Petitioner 
with a sufficient explanation of the grounds for her dismissals. 
Finally, with regard to her motion to reopen, the Petitioner does not identify any error in our dismissal 
of that motion or otherwise contest that determination. Because she has not established how we erred 
2 
as a matter of law or policy in dismissing her motion to reopen, she has not shown reconsideration is 
warranted on that basis, either. 
Because the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or policy at the time we issued our decision, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3