dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Not Specified

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 28, 2024 In Re: 31218695 
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 in addition 
to 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. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), and we summarily dismissed her subsequent appeal because she did not submit a brief with 
her appeal, nor did she allege any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the denial decision. We also 
dismissed a motion to reopen and reconsider the Petitioner filed following our appeal dismissal 
because her submission did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen (8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)) 
because it did not address specific new facts, nor did it satisfy the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider (8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3)) by identifying any erroneous conclusion of law or fact alleging 
error in our prior decision. A favorable outcome for this motion to reopen and reconsider would 
require that she submit new facts supported by evidence, or that she show our most recent decision 
was erroneous m some manner. 
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; Matter of Chawathe, 
25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
The issues here are whether the Petitioner: (1) has submitted new facts, supported by documentary 
evidence, to warrant reopening, and (2) has established that we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS 
policy in dismissing her first combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
And the matters the Petitioner must first overcome within this motion are limited to the issues 
discussed within our most recent decision; the decision on her first motion; not the Director's denial 
or our appeal dismissal. General support that a motion must first overcome the most recent decision 
lies within the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(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. 
Nevertheless, the motion brief focuses first on an allegation of some shortcoming the Director 
committed. Then the Petitioner shifts to argue on the merits of her eligibility for the NIW petition. 
She does not address our dismissal of the most recent filing on her first combined motions. Because 
of that failing, the Petitioner has not met this motion's requirements, and we will dismiss the current 
motions. 
Multiple motion filings serve to thwart the strong public interest in bringing issues to a close, 
particularly in immigration proceedings where every delay works to the filing party's advantage who 
wishes to remain in the United States. Cf Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th 794, 800-01 (9th 
Cir. 2022) (citing INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) and INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107-08 
(1988)). USCIS has the latitude and discretion to be restrictive in granting motions, as granting them 
too freely can create endless delays to a final resolution, not to mention needlessly wasting government 
resources attending to repeated requests. Cf Abudu, 485 U.S. at 108. This demonstrates why a filing 
party may encounter procedural hurdles when they seek a motion, and that burden incrementally 
increases with each subsequent motion filing. Id. 
In some instances, simply refiling a new petition could be a more expeditious and less burdensome 
method to possibly receive a favorable decision. While we do not suggest that this Petitioner should 
abandon their efforts of filing future motions with this office and instead that they file a new petition, 
it is a factor they may wish to consider. 
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