dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: International Taxation Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 5, 2024 In Re: 29116829 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a lawyer specializing in international taxation, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner merits, as a matter of discretion, a national interest waiver of the job offer 
requirement, and thus of the labor certification. 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. 
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. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of 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. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
The Petitioner generally alleges that the Director "did not give full consideration to the evidence" and 
did "not properly analyze[]" it, which "violat[ ed] the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution ... as 
[the] Petitioner provided timely and proper notice to [the] RFE response." As noted, however, our 
review is limited to reviewing our most recent decision. Here, the Petitioner addresses the Director's 
prior decision and not our most recent appeal decision, which upon review, carefully considered the 
submitted evidence. 
Moreover, the Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated what evidence we did not consider, nor has he 
specifically indicated how we incorrectly applied law or policy in our prior decision. Further, beyond 
the Petitioner's vague assertion that the Director violated his Fourth Amendment rights, he does not 
discuss how. 1 For all these reasons, 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. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 This assertion is particularly ambiguous since this amendment generally concerns protection against unreasonable 
government searches and seizures. 
2