dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Mathematics Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUGUST 5, 2024 In Re: 33302939 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a mathematics teacher, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
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. The Petitioner appealed the matter to 
us, and we dismissed her appeal and four subsequent combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The 
Petitioner then appealed our decision dismissing the fourth motion. We rejected that appeal because 
we have no jurisdiction over appeals of AAO decisions. We then dismissed the Petitioner's fifth 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
The matter is now before us again on a sixth 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
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). A motion that does not satisfy the 
applicable requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). We 
dismissed the Petitioner's fifth motion because she did not address the basis for our decision on her 
fourth motion, in which we rejected her appeal of our decision for lack of jurisdiction. While we had 
jurisdiction over the Petitioner's appeal of the Director's denial of her petition and her motions to 
reopen and reconsider our dismissal of her subsequent appeal, we have no jurisdiction over an appeal 
of our decision. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.3(a), 103.5(a). The Petitioner again does not address this issue 
in her present motion and does not submit any evidence relevant to this issue. Because she has not 
established any error in our prior decision, her combined motion must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2