dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Interior Design

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 18, 2023 In Re: 29320013 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an interior design entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and/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 the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Petitioner later filed an appeal that we dismissed. 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 I&N Dec. 369, 
375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
In our decision dismissing the Petitioner 's appeal, we determined the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor rose to the level of national 
importance. 1 We indicated the submitted evidence did not reflect that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor would extend beyond her company and clientele to impact her field more broadly. In 
addition, we concluded the provided evidence did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor 
would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers or have substantial positive economic effects 
on the United States. We further stated that since the Petitioner did not demonstrate the national 
importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, and since this was dispositive of the appeal, that we 
1 In detennining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in 
which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to 
undertake." See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar , we further noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a]n undertaking may have national importance for example, because it 
has national or even global implications within a particular field. " Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has 
significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. at 890. To evaluate 
whether the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor satisfies the national importance requirement we look to evidence documenting 
the "potential prospective impact" of her work. 
declined to reach and reserved her appellate contentions with respect to the second and third prongs 
outlined in Dhanasar. 2 
On motion, the Petitioner requests that we "reconsider the adverse decision and reopen [the] 
Petitioner's Form 1-140." The Petitioner asserts that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) "did not give due regard to all the pieces of the evidence." The Petitioner contends that "the 
documents listed by [USCIS] are proof that the Petitioner has presented all the necessary documents 
along with the filing and [request for evidence] response, but those documents were not properly 
analyzed by [USCIS], violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution." 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter o_f Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). Here, the Petitioner submits no new facts or 
documentary evidence in support of the motion to reopen. For this reason, the motion to reopen must 
be dismissed. 
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.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
As noted, our review of the motion is limited to reviewing our most recent decision. However, the 
Petitioner only discusses the Director's prior decision and not our most recent appeal decision, which 
upon review, carefully listed and considered the evidence submitted. The Petitioner has not 
sufficiently articulated on motion what evidence we did not consider in making our prior decision and 
she does not specifically indicate how we incorrectly applied law or policy to the record of proceeding 
at the time of our decision. Further, the Petitioner vaguely asserts that USCIS somehow violated her 
Fourth Amendment constitutional rights in denying the petition. However, again, the Petitioner does 
not discuss how USCIS violated her Fourth Amendment constitutional rights, and this assertion is 
particularly ambiguous, since this amendment deals with protecting U.S. citizens from unreasonable 
searches and seizures by the government. The Petitioner has not established that our prior decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or policy based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of our decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). As such, the motion to reconsider 
must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2 See INS v. Bagamasbad. 429 U.S. 24. 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516. 526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2