dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Human Rights Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 In Re: 35276678 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a human rights attorney, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional or 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 Petitioner qualified 
for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability, but 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 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 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) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In our prior decision, we detennined the Petitioner was ineligible for three reasons. First, he did not 
submit the Form ETA-750B Statement of Qualifications of Alien (or sections J, K, and L of ETA 
Form 9089 Application for Permanent Employment Certification), as the regulation at 8 C .F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)( 4)(ii) requires. Second, the Petitioner did not sufficiently articulate his proposed endeavor. 
Third, the Petitioner did not establish the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed 
endeavor and did not meet the first prong of the analytical framework in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), to adjudicate national interest waiver petitions . 
On motion, the Petitioner summarizes his achievements, skills, and experience. The Petitioner 
expresses his "[i]ntent to register and establish legal practice and/or Partnership in United States," but 
does not submit a statement detailing his proposed endeavor. Rather, he submits evidence of his past 
work in Pakistan. The Petitioner does not identify any incorrect application of law or policy in our 
prior decision on appeal. For example, the Petitioner does not specify any portion of our prior decision 
that misapplied the Act, regulations or precedent decisions. Without any identification of error in our 
prior decision, the Petitioner's submission does not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 
Consequently, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2