dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Not Specified

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 3, 2024 In Re: 317 44683 
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 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 Nebraska 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. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and three subsequent combined 
motions on the same grounds. The matter is now before us again on a fourth combined motion to 
reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&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 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 ). Our review on motion is limited to 
reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding ." 8 C .F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) , (ii). 
Regarding the instant motion to reopen, the Petitioner does not state new facts supported by 
documentary evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Rather, the Petitioner reiterates her claim that she 
has established that she is eligible for a national interest waiver, claims that have already been 
considered and discussed in our previous decisions. As for the instant motion to reconsider, the 
Petitioner does not assert or establish that our December 16, 2022, decision to dismiss the combined 
motion, the "prior decision" and the "latest decision in the proceeding" was based on an incorrect 
application or law or policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the record of proceedings at 
the time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsidering the proceedings 
with regard to her eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Petitioner's contentions in their current 
motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions. See 
e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by 
which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by 
generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, 
therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2