dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Industrial Hygiene

MATTER OF C-W-K 
APPEAL OF TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 17,2018 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an industrial hygiene researcher, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the 
Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After the petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (I) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job otTer and thus of a labor 
certification. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016 ). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, finding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer. 
and thus of the labor certification. would be in the national interest. The Petitioner appealed the 
matter to us. and we dismissed the appeal. 1 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion. the 
Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3). 
1 See Matter ofC-W-K-, ID# 330051 (AAO June 13, 2017). 
Matter ofC-W-K-
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification 
requires that the individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required 
to establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. ~ 
(A) In general. ~ Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who 
are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent 
or who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 
will substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States. and whose services in 
the sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the 
United States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer~ 
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the 
Attorney General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the 
requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences. 
arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest,'' Dhanasar 
stated that after EB-2 eligibility has been established, USCIS may. as a matter of discretion. grant a 
national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence: (I) that 
the foreign national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance: (2) that 
the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor: and (3) that. on balance. it 
would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor 
certification. 2 
2 See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs. 
2 
.
Maller ofC-W-K-
ll. ANAL YSlS 
A. Background 
The Petitioner intends to continue his work as a researcher and teacher with He 
explains that he aims to further research relating to "the anticipation, recognition, controL and 
prevention of the causes of silicosis " a disease described as "the most common occupational lung 
disease caused by inhalation of respirable crystalline silica (RCS)." He describes how he aims to 
help protect the American worker from developing silicosis by improving the occupational health 
standards from silica exposure and continuing to expand his research applying 
techniques to wood dust sampling to int1uencc 
worker safety policies . In addition to his research activities , the Petitioner claims that he will 
continue his mentorship of students in the 
at 
In denying the Petitioner 's appeal, we found that he had met the first prong of the framework set 
forth in Dhanasar based on his proposed research, but that he had not satisfied the second or third 
prong. The Petitioner now files the current combined motion to reopen and reconsider claiming that 
he provided sufficient evidence establishing that he has met the prongs of the Dhanasar framework. 
He also provides additional evidence, which we address below . 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application law or policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
A request to reanalyze documentation without showing how we incorrectly applied law or policy 
does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
In his motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts that our appellate decision , with regard to the 
second prong of the Dhanasar framework, was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, 
and that his previously submitted evidence established eligibility. He summarizes his documentary 
evidence for the regulatory criteria and requests that we review his documentation again . pointing to 
two projects that he avers we did not sufficiently consider. However he does not specifically explain 
how we incorrectly applied the relevant law, nor has he identified documentation that we overlooked 
or misinterpreted. 
Here, we find no error in our previous determination. In our prior decision, we analyzed the 
evidence relating to the Petitioner's research projects, including those noted on motion, and found 
that the record did not adequately document the claimed significance of his work. We therefore 
determined that the record did not show a record of success or progress in his tield, or a degree of 
interest in his work from relevant parties, rising to the level of rendering him well positioned to 
advance his proposed research endeavor to improve the industry safety standards of workers exposed 
to harmful materials . For purposes of a motion to reconsider , the question is whether our decision 
was correct based on the record that existed at the time of adjudication. On motion, the Petitioner 
.
Matter o.fC-W-K-
again summarizes his research accomplishments and maintains that they well position him to 
advance his proposed endeavor. However, he does not cite to any relevant law, regulation. or 
precedent establishing that our previous findings were based on an incorrect application of the law , 
regulation, or users policy , nor does the motion demonstrate that our latest decision was erroneous 
based on the evidence before us at the time of the decision. 
With regard to the third prong of the Dhanasar framework. the Petitioner emphasizes the potential 
benefits of his work. He does not, however, provide sufficient explanation or information to support 
his claim that our previous determination on this issue was erroneous. 
C. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.5(a)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a '·new" 
fact, nor does it mirror the Board of Immigration Appeals' definition of "new" at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 003.23(b )(3) (stating that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence .. was not 
available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing"). Unlike the Board 
regulation, we do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, we interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue{s) 
raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding , which includes the 
original petition . Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence 
does not constitute "new facts. " 
In our previous decision, we noted that the Petitioner meets the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework based upon his proposed work conducting occupational hygiene research. However, we 
limited our finding of national importance to his research activities. We noted that his proposed 
endeavor of mentoring and instructing high school students in the would not impact 
environmental health education more broadly. Rather, the record indicates that his work will be limited 
to the students at the institution where he serves. Accordingly, we found that his proposed teaching 
activities do not meet the "national importance" element of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework . 
In the motion to reopen, the Petitioner oilers copies of additional promotional literature from the 
that highlights the accomplislunents of a sampling of students from the program including a student 
who presented his research at a national conference, to support his contention that his teaching activities 
with the should also be considered under the "national importance'' element of the first prong. 
However, the evidence submitted does not explain how these students' accomplishments show that his 
work would serve to impact the tield of environmental health education more broadly or otherwise 
support his claim that his work with this high school program is of national importance. 
Also in the motion to reopen , regarding the issue of whether he is well positioned to advance his 
proposed research endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework , the Petitioner 
reiterates his contention that he ·
'found a software inconsistency '· between two spectrometers which 
resulted in different conversion equations in studies . and reported it to their manufacturer , 
4 
.
Matter ofC-W-K-
In our prior decision, we found that he had not explained why this finding 
is significant or whether it impacted subsequent studies, and that a letter from 
which had been provided as supporting evidence, did not mention the Petitioner. On 
motion, he offers copies of email communications confirming that he worked to identify the 
inconsistency, and he states that his work was "important to the researchers to study 
quantitative analysis." However, he does not offer additional evidence regarding his contribution or 
its significance. 
In addition, the Petitioner submits new evidence to support his contention that his master's thesis 
work concerning landfill and wastewater treatment in South Korea was utilized to stabilize a large 
municipal treatment plant. Specifically, he provides a copy of portions of the tina! report of the 
metropolitan landfill leachate treatment project now known as ' · However, this 
report does not explain the Petitioner's role in the project or document that his work was central to 
stabilization of the landtill. As such, we cannot conclude that the newly submitted evidence 
sufficiently renders the Petitioner well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor. 
Finally, the Petitioner's motion to reopen does not include evidence relating to the third prong of the 
Dhanasar framework. Accordingly, he has not overcome our finding that on balance. the Petitioner 
has not established that it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job 
offer and thus of a labor certification. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In this matter, the motion to reconsider does not demonstrate that our previous decision was 
incorrect and the evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome the 
grounds underlying our previous decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofC-W-K- , ID# 787048 (AAO Jan. 17, 2018) 
5