dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Insurance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 2, 2024 In Re: 30681342 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the insurance sector, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor certification, 
would be in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal affirming the Director's decision. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief with no new evidence and asserts that our prior decision "is 
deficient, as it does not evaluate all the arguments presented by the Petitioner in the appeal, that would, 
undoubtedly, lead to a different conclusion ... " The Petitioner does not identify which appellate 
arguments were not addressed in our previous decision. Nor does the Petitioner explain how our prior 
appeal decision did not follow the regulations and policy guidance. Upon review, we do not find any 
error or incorrect application of law or policy. 
On motion, the Petitioner also asserts multiple errors in the Director's decision, including a violation 
of due process. 1 In a motion to reconsider we do not consider new objections to the earlier denial. 
The Petitioner cannot use the present filing to make new allegations of error at prior stages of the 
proceeding. Here, the Petitioner alleges a general error in the Director's decision but does not identify 
any specific error of law or fact in our prior decision. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established proper grounds for reconsideration. 
The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with 
1 The Petitioner did not identify any specific procedural irregularity that deprived them of notice and opportunity to be 
heard. 
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). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not shown 
that our prior decision contained errors of law or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on 
the record at the time of that decision. Therefore, the motion does not meet the requirements of a 
motion to reconsider and must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2