dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mathematics Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 19646843 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 13, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, 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 qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and we summarily dismissed the appeal 
pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3(a)(l )(v). We then dismissed two subsequently filed combined motions 
to reopen and to reconsider. The matter is again before us on a motion to reopen. On motion, the 
Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(l )(i). 
Accordingly, we examine any new facts to the extent that they pertain to our prior dismissal of the 
Petitioner's second combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
As noted above, the Petitioner's appeal was summarily dismissed pursuantto 8 C.F.R. § 103 .3(a)(l Xv) 
because she "fail[ ed] to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion oflaw or statement of fact." In 
our dismissal of the Petitioner's first combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, we 
explained that the Petitioner did "not demonstrate how the evidence provided on motion addresse[ d] 
the stated grounds for summary dismissal" or that "our findings were in error." We further indicated 
that if, "[f]or example,[] the Petitioner had shown that an appellate brief was submitted within thirty 
days after filing her appeal, and that we erred by missing or disregarding that brief, then there would 
be grounds to reopen the proceeding." We then dismissed her second combined motion to reopen and 
motion to reconsider because the Petitioner did "not provide new facts related to our prior decision or 
any new documentary evidence" and did "not refer to any legal authority to demonstrate that we en-ed 
in denying her prior motion." 
In the current motion, the Petitioner again fails to address our prior decision(s) and focuses on her 
qualifications and passion for teaching. However, before we address the merits of the petition, the 
Petitioner must overcome our prior dismissals and the basis for summarily dismissing her appeal. She 
has not done so here. Consequently, the present motion to reopen must be dismissed. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established relevant new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding;. 
We, therefore, have no basis for reopening our prior decision. The Petitioner's underlying petition 
remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2