dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 15, 2024 In Re: 34275062 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of 
exceptional ability, 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 that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification, among other conclusions. We 
dismissed a subsequent appeal for the same reason. We also dismissed two successive motions for 
untimeliness . The matter is now before us is a third motion, 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 
motion. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a personal statement arguing his eligibility for the national interest 
waiver according to the framework laid out in our precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N 
Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 1 He also submits copies of previously-submitted evidence. 
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). 
1 As he did on appeal and as noted in our appeal decision, the Petitioner does not address the determination regarding his 
eligibility for the underlying classification. However, because the Petitioner's eligibility for the national interest waiver 
was not an element in our most recent decision, our instant decision will not make a detennination on this matter. See 
generally INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory 
findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 
(BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where the applicant did not otherwise meet their burden of 
proof). 
As previously noted, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision 
in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to 
the extent that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the prior motion. Here, the Petitioner has 
not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing his previous motion as untimely. 
Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, 
we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. 
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 latest decision, which the Petitioner contests with these motions, was dismissal of his second 
untimely motion. The Petitioner does not address this decision in the instant motion, rather, he re­
submits what appears to be an identical statement contesting our appeal dismissal that he submitted in 
support of his previous untimely motion. As the Petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating 
that our decision to dismiss his previous untimely motion was incorrect, he has not established that 
our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our 
decision. Therefore, the motion to reconsider will 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. 
2