dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 1, 2023 In Re: 28153335 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a marketing manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability and 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 Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement, and thus of labor certification, would serve the 
national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to 
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. 
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. 
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 [to] all the submitted documents." 
The only decision properly before us on motion is our March 2023 appellate decision, not the 
Director's October 2022 denial of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03 .5( a)( 1)(i), which limits the available 
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. 
time to file a motion to reconsider and requires that motions pertain to "the prior decision," which in 
this case is our March 2023 appellate decision. 
In our appellate decision, we referred to the Petitioner's arguments and quoted from her "Professional 
Plan and Statement." We observed that the Petitioner appeared to have materially changed her 
proposed endeavor in response to a request for evidence, and we concluded: 
The Petitioner did not offer specific information and evidence to corroborate her 
assertions that the prospective impact of continuing her work as a marketing manager 
rises to the level of national importance .... Here, the record does not show through 
supporting documentation how her marketing management stands to sufficiently 
extend beyond the businesses that might employ her, to impact the industry or the U.S. 
economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not show that her initial proposed endeavor has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offers substantial positive economic 
effects for our nation. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not address our specific determinations and conclusions or establish 
that they were in error. Instead, 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 March 2023 decision. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on 
an incorrect application oflaw or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, we will dismiss 
the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2