dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 19, 2024 In Re: 33566014 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an industrial and quality engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advance degree or 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 the underlying EB-2 classification or 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 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 our decision dismissing the appeal, which we incorporate here by reference, we agreed with the 
Director's overall determination that the Petitioner did not establish he qualifies for the underlying 
classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability. 
Regarding exceptional ability, we withdrew the Director's adverse determination relating to a license 
or certification to practice the profession at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). And while the Petitioner 
now met three of the six criteria, we did not remand the matter to the Director to perform a final merits 
determination as he had not otherwise established eligibility for the waiver of the job offer requirement 
in the national interest. 
With regard to the national interest waiver, we adopted and affirmed the Director's determination that 
the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor satisfied the national importance element of the 
first prong under Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). Specifically, we noted 
that the Director thoroughly evaluated the Petitioner's claims relating to the first prong's national 
importance element. Further, we stated that, even if we did not adopt and affirm the Director's 
determination, we would have concluded that the Petitioner abandoned this issue on appeal when he 
effectively reproduced the identical text he presented to the Director in response to the request for 
evidence (RFE). 
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. 
On motion, the Petitioner requests "a thorough evaluation of his" exceptional ability claims since we 
withdrew the Director's determination regarding the licensure requirement and, therefore, "given the 
error in the evaluation of the submitted evidence and the importance of a comprehensive review, a 
reversal and remand for a thorough reevaluation of the petitioner's qualifications is justified." The 
Petitioner cites to Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743 (1985) and explains that 
the Supreme Court determined "if relevant factors have not been considered, the remedy should be to 
remand the case back to the agency for further investigation or a more detailed explanation." But, as 
noted above and as we explained in our prior decision, because a review of other dispositive issues 
addressed in the appeal reflected the Petitioner would remain ineligible even if we were to return the 
case to the Director, remanding would serve no purpose. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
(1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is 
unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternate issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts he identified a legal error committed by the Director, namely, 
"rejecting relevant, probative and credible evidence" and generally alleges the Director "failed to 
adequately assess evidence submitted to demonstrate the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor." But beyond the Petitioner's vague assertions, he does not demonstrate how. And the 
Petitioner's general disagreement with the Director's assessment of evidence does not establish that 
the Director "rejected" it. 
The Petitioner further contends that "[r]ather than "abando[ning] the issue" by reproducing the text 
presented to the Director in response to the RFE, the Petitioner strategically reiterated his arguments 
to emphasize the Director's oversight in evaluating the evidence." The Petitioner, however, overlooks 
the fact that we adopted and affirmed the Director's reasoning as it related to the first prong of the 
Dhanasar analysis. 
The Petitioner 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). Furthermore, we reviewed the record and determined 
that the Director's decision considered and thoroughly analyzed the evidence and claims concerning 
the impact of his proposed endeavor and correctly concluded the Petitioner had not established its 
national importance. 
2 
Here, the Petitioner does not demonstrate how our appeal decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy based on the evidence in the record. As noted, our review is limited to 
reviewing our most recent decision, which in this case is our dismissal of the appeal, not the Director's 
denial. Again, simply disagreeing with our conclusions, without showing how we misapplied law or 
pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence, is not sufficient to reconsider our 
decision. 
Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that we erroneously applied law or policy in dismissing his 
appeal, the Petitioner has not established 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. 
3