dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Information Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 15, 2024 In Re: 28821925 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an application manager, seeks second preference immigrant classification as either an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, 
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 that the Petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
subsequent appeal as well as his motion to reopen. The matter is before us again 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 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). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the 
prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings (the dismissal of the motion 
to reopen). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the 
requested benefit. 
In our appellate decision, we concluded that the Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the analytical 
framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). Specifically, we 
explained that, while we recognized the Petitioner's intent to provide valuable services in the 
information technology field and acknowledged the importance of his field, we nonetheless concluded 
that the record did not establish his proposed endeavor would result in broader implications to the field 
at a level commensurate with national importance contemplated in Dhanasar. Id. Additionally, we 
concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his endeavor would result in substantial economic 
effects discussed in Dhanasar. 
As stated, the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, and submitted additional statements discussing his 
background and experience within the field, the impact of his work to his former employers' 
operations, and again reiterated the importance of the information technology field. Because the 
evidence did not address the shortcomings identified in our appellate decision, nor did the evidence 
overcome the basis of our dismissal, we concluded that the Petitioner had not shown proper cause for 
reopening the proceedings. 
Now, on motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts that in dismissing both the appeal and the 
subsequent motion to reopen, we did not properly apply the guidance issued in January 2022 relating 
to national interest waivers filed by science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) graduates. 
Additionally, the Petitioner asserts that we did not follow the policy manual guidance addressing 
national interest waivers filed by entrepreneurs. Notably, however, the Petitioner has not shown how 
we erred in our application of this guidance to his petition, beyond a blanket assertion that we did not 
consider this guidance in adjudicating his appeal and motion. 
The portion of the USCIS Policy Manual relating to STEM states that we may conclude that a STEM 
endeavor has national importance when the evidence sufficiently demonstrates that it would help the 
United States to remain ahead of strategic competitors or current and potential adversaries or when it 
relates to a field where appropriate activity and investment may contribute to the United States 
achieving or maintaining technology leadership or peer status among allies and partners. 1 Here, the 
Petitioner did not show that we erred in concluding that his endeavor will not result in broader 
implications to his field. And the Petitioner had not otherwise shown that his endeavor will foster 
progress in STEM technologies. We recognize the value of such technological innovations and 
importance of STEM related professions; however, merely working in an important field is insufficient 
to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established that we erred in our decision to dismiss his motion to reopen. 
Additionally, while the Petitioner does not identify how we misapplied our current policy relating to 
petitions filed by entrepreneurs, the Petitioner asserts a petitioner can establish the national importance 
of their endeavor by showing the endeavor has substantial positive economic effects "demonstrated 
through letters and other statements from third parties," which he asserts were provided in the record. 
Notably, however, in our decision dismissing both the appeal and the motion to reopen, we evaluated 
the letters provided and explained why they did not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's 
specific endeavor. We concluded that the letters in the record established the benefits the Petitioner 
provided to his former employers, as well as the prospective economic benefits of the industry as a 
whole, but did not establish that the Petitioner's specific endeavor would lead to broader implications 
in the field or otherwise result in substantial economic effects. Yet rather than addressing those 
conclusions or our evaluations of these letters, the Petitioner reiterates the same arguments previously 
made on appeal and on motion to reopen. Accordingly, 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. § I 03.5(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 
1 See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2). 
2 
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