dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: International Relations

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 14, 2023 In Re: 27529491 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a researcher of international relations, seeks classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) . The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the 
Act. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the 
required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent 
appeal and two motions to reconsider. The matter is now before us on a third 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, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the 
Petitioner relies on Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), which set forth a three­
pronged test in which a petitioner seeking a national interest waiver must provide details about the 
individual's proposed endeavor in the United States, and demonstrate that: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States . 
The Petitioner filed the petition in January 2019. The Director denied the petition in March 2021. The 
Petitioner appealed the Director's decision in May 2021. We dismissed that appeal in November 2021. 
The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider in December 2021, which we dismissed in June 2022. In 
July 2022, the Petitioner filed a second motion to reconsider, which we dismissed in January 2023. 
The matter is now before us on a third motion to reconsider, filed in March 2023. 
As we explained in our January 2023 decision, the scope of a motion to reconsider is limited to "the 
prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i), (ii). Here, the 
prior decision is our January 2023 decision, dismissing the Petitioner's second motion to reconsider. 
We discuss the prior steps in this proceeding only for context. 
In the initial denial decision, the Director concluded that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor met only 
the first Dhanasar prong, encompassing both substantial merit and national importance. The 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor involved a combination of teaching and research activities. In our 
November 2021 appellate decision, we withdrew the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner had 
established the national importance of her proposed endeavor. We noted that the petitioner in Matter 
of Dhanasar had not established the national importance of his proposed teaching activities. Id. at 
893. We also concluded that the Petitioner had not provided enough details about the nature of her 
intended employment, which would affect its national importance. We agreed with the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner had not satisfied the second Dhanasar prong with sufficient evidence to 
show that she is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. We reserved consideration of the 
third Dhanasar prong, because such discussion was unnecessary to determine the outcome of the 
appellate decision. 
In her first motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserted that we had misapplied '"the principles 
articulated in Dhanasar," and argued that she had sufficiently established eligibility for the waiver. 
We dismissed that motion, stating: "the Petitioner's statement ... does not provide sufficient details, 
cmroborated by objective evidence, to establish how the proposed research endeavor would have 
'national or even global implications within a particular field."' 
In her second motion to reconsider, the Petitioner stated: 
In the [first] Motion, we argued that the AAO's decision ... was based on its 
misapplication of the principles articulated in Matter ofDhanasar ... . 
In the Second Dismissal, the AAO [ Administrative Appeals Office] appears to concede 
to these points, as it does not challenge our reasoning or object to the conclusions 
presented in the [first] Motion. However, the Second Dismissal then goes on to object 
to the fact that the Motion did not contain any new evidence and only discussed [the 
Petitioner's] previously submitted personal statement. ... The AAO then goes on to 
dismiss the motion based on the fact that we had not provided more evidence to 
establish that [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor has national importance . 
. . . As the AAO has noted, the Motion to Reconsider is not the appropriate venue to 
introduce new evidence or facts ... [and] counsel has been told numerous times over 
not to resubmit evidence that USCIS already has on file. 
2 
We dismissed the second motion, disputing the Petitioner's contention that we had conceded key 
points in the first motion. Also, in a motion to reconsider, we do not expect a petitioner to submit new 
evidence or copies of previously submitted evidence. Nevertheless, the burden is on the petitioner to 
explain how the existing record does not support our previous decision. It was for this reason that, in 
our June 2022 decision, we observed that "the Petitioner's statement ... does not provide sufficient 
details, corroborated by objective evidence. . . ." The conclusion that particular statements are 
uncorroborated is not a determination that the Petitioner should have submitted new evidence, nor is 
a determination that the record does not contain any evidence. Our appellate decision identified and 
discussed several of the materials the Petitioner had previously submitted in support of the petition. 
The Petitioner has now filed a third motion to reconsider. On motion, the Petitioner mischaracterizes 
her second motion, stating it contained arguments that actually appeared in the first motion. The 
Petitioner further summarizes the second motion: 
We further noted that the law had been erroneously applied in the Dismissal, and 
respectfully requested the AAO to return to the evidence on record and review it once 
again while applying the proper legal standard. . . . We stated that in addition to the 
personal statement, Petition included objective evidence confirming broader 
implications of [the Petitioner's] proposed endeavor. ... Lastly, we requested that the 
AAO apply the coITect standard to the evidence on record and reevaluate the evidence 
to confirm that [ the Petitioner] is more likely than not to have met the [ eligibility 
requirements]. 
However, in the Third Dismissal, the AAO concluded that" ... the Petitioner ... does 
not identify or discuss the specific documentation that she believes we overlooked or 
misconstrued in arriving at our conclusions, based on the evidence in the record at that 
time, nor does she show how we misapplied law, regulation or USCIS policy." ... This 
document will first present the legal evaluation of whether the AAO misapplied Matter 
ofDhanasar in evaluating national importance, then proceed to evaluate the Dismissal 
with respect to the three prongs of Dhanasar, sequentially, and establish eligibility for 
the benefit sought in the Petition. 
The remainder of the brief, however, does not directly address the quoted conclusion from our January 
2023 decision. Instead, most of the Petitioner's brief on motion is copied, either directly or with 
minimal changes in wording, from earlier briefs submitted on appeal in May 2021 and her first motion 
in December 2021. A motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, 
the same brief previously presented and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior 
decision. Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). 
A motion to reconsider does not entail de novo review of the entire record of proceeding, and a 
petitioner's general assertion that the record supports approval of the petition cannot suffice as a basis 
for reconsideration. In a motion to reconsider, the burden is on the Petitioner to specifically identify 
evidence already in the record to show that we had erred in our prior decision. 
3 
The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to show error in the most recent prior decision. The 
Petitioner's latest filing does not meet this standard. We addressed the Petitioner's prior arguments in 
our earlier decisions, and the Petitioner's repetition of the same arguments does not show proper cause 
for reconsideration. 
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 in January 2023. Therefore, 
we will dismiss the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4