dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Marketing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 19, 2024 In Re: 33759684 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a marketing specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 did not qualify 
for the EB-2 classification and 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 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). 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). 
The record shows that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to operate his retail consultancy, advisory, 
and training company in Florida. In our decision dismissing the appeal, while we reserved our analysis 
of the three Dhanasar prongs, we explained why the Petitioner failed to demonstrate his eligibility for 
the underlying EB-2 classification. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
In support of his motion to reopen, the Petitioner resubmits previously submitted documents along 
with a brief. The Petitioner requests that we reopen and reconsider our decision based on these 
submissions. The Petitioner, however, does not present any new facts and does not submit any new 
evidence. The Petitioner rather highlights his evidence and contends that he has established five of 
the six initial regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The Petitioner further affirms his 
proposed endeavor's substantial merit and national importance and argues that he has demonstrated a 
waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertions and documents, the Petitioner has not established 
new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings. 
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 to reconsider, the Petitioner does not explain how we erroneously dismissed his appeal. 
The Petitioner also does not explain how our appellate 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. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted documents in support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner 
has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our 
appellate decision. On motion to reconsider, 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. 
Therefore, we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2