dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 8, 2024 In Re: 29695488 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 EB-2 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 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. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us on combined 
motions to reopen and 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 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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). Because the scope of a motion is 
limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy the aforementioned requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner states that we did not consider all the evidence that he had submitted with 
the petition and, later, in response to a request for evidence. He asserts that "those documents were 
not properly analyzed by the Service, violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
United States of America." The Fourth Amendment in part prohibits "unreasonable searches and 
seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. We conclude the Petitioner's citation to the Fourth Amendment is 
not relevant to the matter at hand as he has not explained how we violated the Fourth Amendment in 
dismissing his appeal. Citing to an authority that is not relevant to the grounds of the unfavorable 
decision will not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. See Matter of0-S-G-, 24 l&N Dec. 
56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("A motion to reconsider is not a mechanism by which a party may file a new brief 
... raising additional legal arguments that are unrelated to those issues raised before the Immigration 
Judge and on appeal."). 
The Petitioner asks that we "reconsider the adverse decision and reopen [the petition] and give full 
consideration [to] all the submitted documents." The only decision properly before us on motion is 
our July 2023 appellate decision, and not the Director's December 2022 denial of the petition. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), which limits the available time to file a motion to reconsider and requires 
that motions pertain to "the prior decision," which in this case is our July 2023 appellate decision. 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016). We explained that the Petitioner had not shown that his proposed endeavor would extend 
beyond his company and its clients to impact the information technology consulting field in which he 
intends to operate, or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare at a level commensurate with 
national importance. In addition, we stated that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his 
undertaking has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or would result substantial positive 
economic benefits to the regional or national economy. 
The Petitioner 's motion does not address our specific determinations and conclusions or establish that 
they were in error. Instead, the Petitioner makes vague and general assertions that USCIS disregarded 
unspecified evidence. Such assertions do not establish that our appellate decision was incorrect, and 
do not oblige us to re-adjudicate the appeal de novo. The Petitioner does not identify any specific 
documents or other pieces of evidence that we overlooked in our appellate review of the record, and 
he does not explain how discussion or consideration of those materials would have changed the 
outcome of our July 2023 decision. He therefore has not demonstrated that our appellate decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy and that our decision was incorrect based on 
the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. In addition, the Petitioner has not offered new 
evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our appellate decision. 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the 
motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains 
dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2