dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Legal Consulting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24058869 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 25, 2023 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a legal consultant , 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. We dismissed the Petitioner's 
appeal from that decision in May 2022. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen 
and reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
We may reopen the proceeding or reconsider our prior decision for proper cause shown . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i). The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon 
review, we will dismiss the combined motion. 
We incorporate by reference the "Law" section of our May 2022 decision, which describes the 
requirements for the national interest waiver. 
On motion , the Petitioner states that we did not consider all the evidence that the Petitioner had 
submitted with the petition and, later, in response to a request for evidence. The Petitioner asserts that 
"those documents were not properly analyzed by the Service, violating the Fourth Amendment of the 
Constitution of the United States of America." 1 The Petitioner asks that we "reconsider the adverse 
decision and reopen [the petition] and give full consideration on all the submitted documents." 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(2). The Petitioner states 
no new facts on motion, and submits no new supporting evidence. Therefore , the motion does not 
meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. A motion that does not meet applicable requirements 
shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
1 The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures ." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Petitioner appears 
to mean the Fifth Amendment , which guarantees "due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. V. 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect application oflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy. 8 C.F .R 
§ 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider must also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. Id. 
The only decision properly before us on motion is our May 2022 appellate decision, not the Director's 
September 2021 denial of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(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 May 2022 appellate decision. 
In our appellate decision, we referred to the Petitioner's arguments, quoted from his "Professional 
Plan and Statement," and acknowledged his submission of supporting evidence including articles 
about Brazil's economy and "articles and industry reports [about] the U.S. legal services industry." 
We concluded: 
Although the Petitioner's Professional Plan and Statement reflect his intention to create 
a legal consulting business, he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that ... the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend 
beyond his business and clientele to impact his field or the industry more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated ... that his legal consultant business 
activities stand to provide substantial economic benefits in the United States ... or that 
his endeavor would off er the region or its population a substantial economic benefit 
through employment levels or business activity. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not address our specific determinations and conclusions or establish 
that they were in error. The Petitioner makes vague and general assertions that we disregarded 
unspecified evidence. Such assertions do not establish that our appellate decision was incorrect, and 
do not oblige us to readjudicate the appeal de novo. The Petitioner does not identify any specific 
documents or other pieces of evidence that we overlooked in our appellate review of the record, and 
the Petitioner does not explain how discussion or consideration of those materials would have changed 
the outcome of our May 2022 decision. 
Because the Petitioner has not identified any erroneous application of law or policy, the motion does 
not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(3), and must be 
dismissed. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration 
and has not overcome the grounds for dismissal of the appeal. We will dismiss the motion to reopen 
and motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2