dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2024 In Re: 30291410 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner 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 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 qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's 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 l&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 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). Because the scope of a motion is 
limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy the aforementioned requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the 
first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 
2016). We explained that the Director considered the Petitioner's claims under the three prongs of 
Dhanasar and determined that she only established the substantial merit of her proposed endeavor. 
Regarding national importance, we noted that the Director's decision reviewed and analyzed the 
Petitioner's claims including her business plan with employment creation assertions, letters of support, 
and industry reports and articles and discussed their deficiencies. We stated that the Petitioner's appeal 
brief generally reiterated the benefits of her profession, her qualifications, and the claimed economic 
impacts of her proposed medical clinic( s) and asserted that this information established the national 
importance of her proposed endeavor. We indicated, however, that she did not provide any new 
evidence or arguments on appeal to overcome the Director's determination. Accordingly, we adopted 
and affirmed the Director's decision as it related to Dhanasar's first prong. 1 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that our decision "was not adequately substantiated, and the 
arguments presented in the ... petition were not duly considered." She requests that we "review and 
reassess our determination" and that it "be anchored in a particular and substantiated rationale." 2 The 
Petitioner's motion, however, does not specifically address our determination relating to Dhanasar 's 
first prong or establish that it was in error. Instead, the Petitioner makes vague and general assertions 
that USCIS disregarded unspecified arguments and evidence. Such assertions do not establish that 
our appellate decision was incorrect, and do not oblige us to re-adjudicate the appeal de novo. 
In addition, the Petitioner asks that we take "into account the unique circumstances, intentions, and 
extenuating factors that have contributed to her present situation," and "reconsider the denial of her 
Form 1-140," but the Petitioner does not identify any specific documents or other pieces of evidence 
that were overlooked by USCIS, and she does not explain how discussion or consideration of those 
materials would have changed the outcome of our August 2023 decision. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that our appellate decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy 
and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. In 
addition, the Petitioner has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds 
for dismissal in our appellate decision. 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has she shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the 
motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains 
dismissed, and her underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 See Matter of Burbano, 20 T&N Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994); see also Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1997) 
(noting that the practice of adopting and affi1ming the decision below has been "universally accepted by every other circuit 
that has squarely confronted this issue"); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1996) (joining eight U.S. Court of Appeals in 
holding the appellate adjudicators may adopt and affirm the decision below as long as they give "individualized 
consideration" to the case). 
2 The Petitioner also requests "consideration for adjustment of status," but that issue is not before us on motion and we 
have no jurisdiction over that matter. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(ii). 
2