dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 11, 2024 In Re: 33747094 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an Oracle EBS consultant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 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 did not 
establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification or the requested national interest waiver. 
The Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal claiming eligibility for EB-2 immigrant classification as 
an individual of exceptional ability' and the requested national interest waiver. We dismissed his 
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. 
In our decision, we concluded that the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility as an individual of 
exceptional ability because he only met two evidentiary criteria: 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and 
(B), relating to an official academic record and ten years of full-time experience in the occupation 
sought. We also determined that the record did not establish that Petitioner met the criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F) relating to recognition of achievements and significant contributions to 
his industry or field. 2 While we acknowledged the Petitioner's submission of numerous reference 
letters from former colleagues and others in the field generally praising the Petitioner's expertise and 
1 Because the Petitioner did not acknowledge or rebut the Director's conclusion that he was not eligible for EB-2 immigrant 
classification as an advanced degree professional , we considered that issue waived. 
2 The Petitioner did not submit evidence to satisfy the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C) or (E), nor did 
he contest the Director's determination that he did not meet the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D) . 
work ethic, we concluded that the letters did not establish that the Petitioner's contribution went 
beyond being a dedicated and competent employee. Additionally, we explained that the evidence in 
the record relating to the Petitioner's provision of services, including the professional services 
agreements, invoices, and his employment with a large, "diversified conglomerate" may have 
established his commitment and success in his career, but it did not demonstrate recognition for 
achievements and significant contributions to his field. Finally, we reserved the Petitioner's appellate 
arguments regarding his eligibility for a national interest waiver. 3 
On motion, the Petitioner generally disagrees with our decision, asserting "error in the evaluation of 
the evidence," and claims that the record establishes his achievements and significant contributions to 
his industry in satisfaction of the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). In doing so, he 
does not identify any specific documents or evidence that we overlooked in our appellate review of 
the record that establish his significant contributions to the field. Instead, he repeats the salient points 
of his experience and relies on the same evidence we discussed in our prior decision. For example, on 
motion the Petitioner claims that the letters in the record show that he "significantly enhanced the 
logistical operations of [his former employer's] company," and his recent role with his multi-national 
employer attests to his "standing as a highly respected professional in the global IT services sector." 
Likewise, he claims that, given the size of this employer's operations, his role positioned him as "a 
top-tier professional capable of delivery impactful solutions." Additionally, the Petitioner cites the 
expert opinion letter in the record, in which the expert opines that, not only did the Petitioner fulfill 
the duties of his roles, but he often exceeded the demands of each position he had, and spearheaded 
"major projects that involve critical updates, system overhauls, and the implementation of 
comprehensive new systems." He also discusses his educational background and training, yet these 
credentials do not establish his significant contributions to his field. 
We addressed the Petitioner's evidence and claims in our prior decision and concluded that while the 
record showed he had made contributions to his employers and customers, he did not establish 
significant contributions to his field. The Petitioner has shown that he has received praise and 
recognition given his dedication to his work, but the evidence does not identify ways in which the 
Petitioner's work resulted in significant contributions to his field. As such, the Petitioner has not 
established that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Because the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated how we erred as a matter of law or policy, his motion does not meet 
the requirements of a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 
I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (confirming that a person cannot satisfy the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider by generally alleging error in the prior decision, rather the filing party "must specify the 
factual and legal issues" that were decided in error). 
Consequently, we have no basis for reconsideration of our decision, and the Petitioner's motion will 
be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" 
on issues that are unnecessmy to the ultimate decision); see also Matter olL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) 
( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is othe1wise ineligible). 
2