dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Not Specified

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 5, 2024 In Re: 30650354 
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 well as 
a national interest waiver (NIW) of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). The Texas 
Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (petition), 
concluding that the record did not establish that the Petitioner merits a discretionary waiver of the job 
offer requirement in the national interest (NIW). We dismissed a subsequent appeal agreeing with the 
Director regarding his NIW eligibility, but we further withdrew the Director's favorable EB-2 decision 
as the evidence did not meet the regulatory requirements for post-bachelor's degree experience. The 
Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter 
ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
A motion to reopen is based on new facts that are supported by documentary evidence, and a motion 
to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). If warranted, we may grant requests that satisfy these requirements , then 
make a new eligibility determination. 
The procedural history relating to this filing is not necessary for us to restate it here. We incorporate 
the history by reference from our previous discussion on the matter. The issues here are whether the 
Petitioner: (1) has submitted new facts, supported by documentary evidence, to warrant reopening the 
appeal, and (2) has established that we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in dismissing his 
appeal. First, the Petitioner's motions do not satisfy the basic requirements for either type of motion. 
For the motion to reopen, he doesn't offer new facts that are supported by documentary evidence. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). And regarding the motion to reconsider, he makes no argument 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). 
Beyond those procedural failures, the matters the Petitioner must first overcome within this motion 
are limited to the issues discussed within our most recent decision; the decision on their appeal. 
General support that a motion must first overcome the most recent decision lies within the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l )-(3) where it repeatedly discusses the underlying or latest decision, it limits 
the time one has to file a motion after the most recent decision, and it references jurisdiction resting 
with the entity who made the latest decision. This demonstrates that any motion must first address 
and overcome the most recent adverse decision before the filing party's arguments may move on to 
any issue that arose in a previous petition, appeal, or motion filing. 
In the motions, the Petitioner first focuses on what transpired before the Director. However, the appeal 
was his opportunity to contest those issues, he did so, and our appeal decision explained why those 
arguments were not persuasive. For this reason we will not address the Petitioner's motion arguments 
relating to the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees "due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. V. 
Next, he briefly addresses our appeal dismissal claiming it was deficient because it did not evaluate 
all the arguments within his appeal brief. He further posits that doing so would have led to a different 
conclusion establishing he qualifies for both the EB-2 classification as well as the NIW requirements. 
Yet, he doesn't specify what evidence was not evaluated, nor how such an analysis would have altered 
our decision to dismiss the appeal. Also, while the Petitioner asserts that our appeal dismissal relating 
to his post-bachelor's work experience was incorrect, he failed to refute our reasoning that after 
earning his degree in 2013 he accrued fewer than five years of experience in the specialty. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Commensurate 
with that burden is the responsibility for explaining the significance of proffered evidence. Repaka v. 
Beers, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1214, 1219 (S.D. Cal. 2014). Filing parties should not refer to large quantities of 
evidence without notifying us of the specific documentation that corroborates their claims within such 
large quantities, as doing so places an undue burden on the appellate body to search through the 
documentation without the aid of the filing party's knowledge. Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d 193, 196 n.4 
(9th Cir. 1992). 
A reviewing body is not required to sift through the record to search for errors and build the appellant's 
argument before dismissing the appeal or the motions. Id.; Spear Mktg., Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 
F.3d 586,599 (5th Cir. 2015); S.E.C v. Thomas, 965 F.2d 825,827 (10th Cir. 1992); see also Harolds 
Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1540 n.3 (10th Cir. 1996) (concluding that where 
the evidence in the record is voluminous, it is imperative that an appellant provide specific references to 
record); Uli v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 950,957 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing to Matter ofD-l-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 448, 
451 (BIA 2008) and noting when a case includes voluminous background materials, it is necessary to 
specifically identify the material one relies on to come to their conclusion). The truth is to be determined 
not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376 (citing Matter of 
E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 80 (Comm'r 1989)). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we should either reopen the proceedings or reconsider our 
decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2