dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 28, 2024 In Re: 31223815 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a martial arts instructor, 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 Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal affirming the Acting 
Director's decision. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief with no new evidence and requests that we "reconsider the 
adverse decision and reopen Petitioner's Form 1-140," based on errors he asserts the Acting Director 
made. The Petitioner does not assert any errors of law or policy in our appellate decision. Nor does 
the Petitioner present new facts or provide supporting documentary evidence. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, "new facts" are facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion and 
that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original petition. 
Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 
"new facts." 
Here, the Petitioner presents no new facts and the motion is not supported by any documentary 
evidence. Therefore, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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). 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the Acting Director "did not give due regard to all the pieces of 
evidence." He further asserts that the Acting Director "deprived the Petitioner from a fair treatment, 
thus violating his due process rights," because she did not analyze all factors in the framework for 
adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. 
In a motion to reconsider we do not consider new objections to the earlier denial. The Petitioner 
cannot use the present filing to make new allegations of error at prior stages of the proceeding. Here, 
the Petitioner alleges the same errors in the Acting Director's decision as he did in his appellate 
arguments. We addressed these arguments in our appellate decision. However, the Petitioner does 
not identify any specific error of law or fact in our prior appeal decision. Nor does the Petitioner assert 
that our prior appeal decision did not follow the regulations and policy guidance. 
The Petitioner has not established proper grounds for reconsideration. The Petitioner cannot meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion must 
demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 
(BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit, in 
essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. For the reasons discussed 
above, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening the proceedings or reconsideration of 
our prior decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2