dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC . 13, 2024 In Re: 35324807 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition 
for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 EB-2 classification . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Director also dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent combined motions to reopen 
and reconsider. We dismissed the Petitioner's 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 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). 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). We may grant motions that satisfy 
these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. Because the scope of a motion 
is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .5( a)( 1 )(i), (ii). 
In our decision dismissing her appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016). We explained that the Petitioner had not provided sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that her proposed endeavor's prospective impact rises to the level of national importance. 1 
1 Specifically, the Petitioner did not show that her proposed conciliation and mediation services stand to sufficiently extend 
beyond her clients to affect the field of alternative dispute resolution more broadly. Nor did the Petitioner establish that 
On motion, the Petitioner indicates that she intends to "collaborate with other legal professionals to 
address legal issues for the Brazilian and American population as legal professional specialist, or will 
serve as the legal policy consultant to provide valuable support" in areas such as tax reform legislation, 
intellectual property protection for technology companies, commercial law, public administration and 
prison system, and alternative dispute resolution. She asserts that our appellate decision erred "in 
assessing her eligibility based on her company's status rather than evaluating her personal credentials." 
We did not dismiss the appeal "based on her company's status" as the Petitioner claims on motion. 
Rather, our appellate decision explained in detail the reasons why her combined motions before the 
Director were properly dismissed, including because she did not meet the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Dhanasar' s first prong, substantial merit and national importance, focuses on the specific 
endeavor that the individual proposes to undertake. Id. at 889. In determining whether the proposed 
endeavor has national importance, we consider its potential prospective impact. Id. We determined, 
for example, the record supported the Director's conclusion that the Petitioner had not established her 
proposed legal services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her clients to affect the field more broadly. 
The Petitioner further argues on motion that "her eligibility hinges on her own qualifications, 
experiences and professional credential in the field of Law." She mentions her law degree, decades 
of work experience, professional certifications, and attorney licensure. These types of evidence, 
however, relate to the second Dhanasar prong. The second prong shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the individual. Id. at 890.2 The Petitioner's motion does not address our specific 
determinations and conclusions in the appellate decision as they relate to Dhanasar 's first prong or 
establish that they were in error. 
In addition, the Petitioner points to letters of recommendation from J-C-C-, M-F-A-R-S-, R-C-, J-R­
C-, N-M-O-, G-L-, and K-S-O- discussing her legal capabilities and experience. Again, the 
Petitioner's legal skills, knowledge, and prior work in her field relate to the second prong of the 
Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." 
Id. at 890. The issue on motion is whether the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to 
undertake has national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong. She does not explain how our 
appellate decision erred in analyzing her first prong arguments and evidence. 
The Petitioner also requests that we "evaluate the totality of the evidence" and reconsider all her 
previously submitted documents. The only decision properly before us on motion is our July 2024 
appellate decision, and not the Director's earlier decisions. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l )(i), which limits 
the available time to file a motion to reconsider and requires that motions pertain to "the prior 
decision," which in this case is our appellate decision. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that our 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy and that our decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. Additionally, the Petitioner 
the specific endeavor she proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ US workers or otherwise offers 
substantial positive economic effects for the United States. 
2 To determine whether an individual is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor, we consider factors including, 
but not limited to: their education, skills, knowledge and record of success in related or similar efforts; a model or plan 
for future activities; any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and the interest of potential customers, users, 
investors, or other relevant entities or individuals. Id. 
2 
has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our 
appellate decision. 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has she shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the 
motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains 
dismissed, and her underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3