dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 31, 2024 In Re: 34245299 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur and information technology manager, 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. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a professional holding an advanced degree, 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 a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on 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. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of 
the motion, the Petitioner asserts, "[t]he record clearly establishes the potential prospective impact of 
the endeavor by its implications on the field of tracking technologies .. .." The Petitioner asks for 
reconsideration of the decision as a whole and does not specifically identify on motion, how we may 
have incorrectly applied law or policy in our prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) (limiting 
the scope of a motion to the latest decision). For example, the Petitioner asserts, "the record 
established the proposed endeavor's impact on the tracking technologies field." In our appellate 
decision, we acknowledged the Petitioner's "intention to provide valuable business consulting and 
tracking technology services.. . . " However, we concluded the Petitioner had not shown "their 
proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond their company and its clientele . . . . " 
Additionally, the Petitioner again states that his proposed endeavor will address a driver shortage. 
This issue was addressed in the appellate decision where we state, "[t]he Petitioner has not established 
that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to impact or significantly reduce these claimed national 
shortages. Moreover, shortages of qualified workers are directly addressed by the U.S. Department of 
Labor through the labor certification process." 
We addressed these, and the other assertions made on motion in our appellate decision. The Petitioner 
reargues the same or similar assertions but does not identify any specific error of law or fact. Nor does 
the Petitioner establish that our prior decision did not follow the regulations and policy guidance. 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not established proper grounds for reconsideration. The Petitioner cannot 
meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the 
motion must demonstrate 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). The Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate eligibility or, in this case, the applicability 
of the law or policy he asserts we incorrectly applied in the latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3); 
see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. On motion to 
reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2