dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 6, 2025 In Re: 35000441 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a lawyer, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner qualified for 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but did not establish 
that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national 
interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. 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 l&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). See Matter ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence 
have the potential to change the outcome). 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 indicated that he will establish a consulting firm in the United States that will advise 
United States-based businesses interested in entering the Brazilian market. The Petitioner explained 
that he will lead the company, which will focus on providing advice on Brazilian law to businesses 
and individuals who are engaged in trading and direct foreign investment projects. The Petitioner 
stated his company will be based in I I Florida and will later expand across Florida and to other 
states. In our previous decision dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we concluded that the record did 
not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as required by the first 
prong of the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions under Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). Specifically, we determined that the Petitioner did not establish 
his proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers (particularly in an 
economically depressed area), has other substantial positive economic effects, or has national or even 
global implications within his field or other broader implications indicating national importance. 
Because this conclusion was dispositive of the appeal, we reserved our opinion as to the remaining 
Dhanasar prongs. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner asserts his endeavor includes entrepreneurship, "at a time when 
entrepreneurship seems to be dwindling in the U.S." 1 The Petitioner claims he aims to establish his 
firm in Florida, where "small businesses are of paramount importance to local economy as they 
provide nearly two-thirds of the net new private jobs in the state." The Petitioner asserts his proposed 
endeavor will "not only generat[ e] direct and indirect jobs but also stimulate[] the investment of 
foreign companies on American soil, generating a multiplier effect of opportunities and business for 
the American economy." As stated in our appeal decision, we considered whether the economic 
activity resulting from his proposed endeavor would rise to the level of substantial positive economic 
impacts and if the endeavor has a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, indicative of national 
importance, and we determined that they did not. Specifically, we noted the Petitioner's business plan 
did not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of his economic projections, including revenue and 
job creation, and did not establish the company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national 
importance. The assertions made on motion include limited information regarding employment by 
small businesses in Florida but the record still does not corroborate the claimed job and revenue 
projections for the proposed endeavor or otherwise establish the Petitioner's own proposed endeavor 
would have substantial positive economic effects or has potential to employ U.S. workers at a level 
indicating its national significance. He therefore has not established new facts overcoming our prior 
determination and establishing eligibility. 
The Petitioner also submits three new industry articles: 1) Unlocking Opportunities: Nearshoring in 
Latin America for US Investors, published on the web at White & Case, a global law firm, on 
November 6, 2023; 2) Why are Business Expanding into Latin America?, published on the web at MBI 
Talent Group on March 14, 2023; and 3) How Walmart Missed the Mark in Brazil, published on the 
web at Castus Global, a business development firm, on May 23, 2022. Evidence for 
a motion to reopen must contain new pertinent facts. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
The newly submitted industry articles all generally discuss financial investments in and business 
expansions to Latin America, namely Brazil, and do not speak specifically to the Petitioner's specific 
endeavor he proposes to undertake and how the proposed endeavor may have national or even global 
implications within a particular field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial 
positive economic effects reflecting the endeavor's national importance, as contemplated by Matter of 
1 The Petitioner also asserts on motion that his endeavor is unique due to his "diverse professional background and his 
experience in different beauty environments, demonstrating his ability to adapt and excel in various settings." However, 
these factors relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework. The second prong of the Dhanasar analysis examines 
whether the petitioner is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor and shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor 
to the individual. Id. At issue here is whether the Petitioner established the national importance of his endeavor under 
prong one. 
2 
Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 889-90. The Petitioner's evidence on motion to reopen therefore does not 
establish new facts overcoming our prior determination and demonstrating the national importance of 
the Petitioner's endeavor and eligibility for a national interest waiver. Therefore, we will dismiss the 
motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (4). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner submits, in essence, the same brief he submitted on appeal, 
containing many passages-including entire paragraphs-of verbatim text, generally alleging error in 
our prior decision. A motion to reconsider is not a process by which a petitioner may submit, in 
essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the 
prior decision. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). More specifically, the 
Petitioner generally reasserts on motion to reconsider that both our prior decision and the Director's 
underlying decision improperly "equate[ d] the lack of geographical implication and the lack of 
potential to employ U.S. workers as failure to show national importance," contrary to Matter of 
Dhanasar. The Petitioner also reiterates generalized assertions already in the record, such as that the 
proposed endeavor "surpasses merely generating revenue for private companies [or] individuals[;] it 
creates financial bridges, and prompts economic development enhancing and improving the 
functionality and monetary output of the nation's economy." 
We first note that, contrary to the Petitioner's reassertions on motion to reconsider, we did not limit 
our Dhanasar prong one analysis to the proposed endeavor's geographical implications. Rather, as 
noted above, we explained that the record does not establish how the proposed endeavor may have the 
type of broader implications contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong, such as the work extending 
beyond the Petitioner's company's individual clients to impact his field more broadly on a level 
commensurate with national importance, or that it has significant potential to employ U.S. workers. 
See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Thus, in Dhanasar, we determined that the 
Petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they 
would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 889, 893. On motion, the Petitioner again makes the 
same generalized and uncorroborated assertions about the proposed endeavor's potential economic 
effects but does not identify any specific legal or factual error in our previous determination that he 
did not demonstrate how the endeavor the Petitioner proposes to undertake may have national or even 
global implications within his field or how the prospective economic impact of the endeavor would be 
at the level of national importance. See id. at 889-90. 
Because 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 or that it was incorrect based on the 
record at the time, the motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)-(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3