dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mathematics Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24584355 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mathematics teacher, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We summarily dismissed her appeal and three subsequent motions. In our most 
recent decision, we determined that the Petitioner did not present a new fact supported by documentary 
specifically relating to the dismissal of her previous motion to reopen. The matter is before us again 
on a fourth combined motion to reopen and 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 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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). As noted above, we dismissed the 
prior motion to reopen because the Petitioner did not present a new fact to reopen the proceeding. 
Specifically, the Petitioner provided documents relating to events occurring after the initial filing of 
the petition. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(l) . Moreover, the Petitioner did not show how the evidence addressed the prior decision, 
the dismissal of the second motion. 1 
1 As indicted in our previous decision , the Petitioner 's evidence also did not address our prior motion dismissals and the 
original basis for summarily dismissing her appeal - the failure to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion oflaw or 
statement of fact in the Director 's decision when she submitted her appeal, or within the brief submission period . See 8 
C.F .R. § 103 .5( a)(l )(i). 
The review of any motion is narrowed to the basis for the prior adverse decision. Accordingly, we 
will examine any new facts and arguments to the extent that they pertain to our most recent decision, 
the dismissal of the third motion. The Petitioner presents a letter stating that she "strongly believe[ s] 
that [her] motion to reopen and reconsider is based on new evidence with the specific proposed 
endeavor that is of national importance and national in scope to qualify [her] for a national interest 
waiver." In addition, the Petitioner summarizes her project proposal and highlights some of her recent 
teaching awards. Further, the Petitioner submits her project proposal entitled, "Creating a STEM 
Sanctuary Garden," copies ofletters discussing her proposal, copies of awards, and a January 21, 2002 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Policy Alert entitled, "National Interest Waivers 
for Advanced Degree Professionals or Persons of Exceptional Ability" (PA-2022-02). 
The Petitioner does not demonstrate a new fact supported by documentary evidence for the fourth 
motion, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). For the same reasons in dismissing her last motion to 
reopen, the Petitioner submits documentary evidence relating to events occurring after the initial filing 
of the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Furthermore, the Petitioner does not show how the 
evidence addresses or overcomes the prior decision dismissing her motion to reopen. Again, before 
we address the merits of the petition, the Petitioner must overcome our previous motion dismissals 
and the basis for summarily dismissing her appeal, which she has not done. 
The Petitioner also does not identify a law or policy that we have incorrectly applied in our most 
decision dismissing the third motion under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Although the motion brief asserts 
that "the Petitioner submits her personal statement containing her reasons about why her case must be 
reopened," the Petitioner does not establish that we erroneously applied law or policy in dismissing 
her motion to reopen. Neither the Petitioner's letter nor her brief explain how we erroneously 
dismissed her third motion. Instead, they discuss her most recent proposed endeavor without 
addressing the specific determinations in our last decision. 
The fourth combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider does not include new information or 
evidence that overcomes the grounds underlying our decision dismissing her third motion and does 
not show that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2