dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 25, 2024 In Re: 30589967 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition 
for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2). The 
Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 
immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job 
offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that although the 
Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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 a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on motion 
to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business . Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Next, a 
petitioner must then demonstrate they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the 
national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016) provides that USCIS may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the 
petitioner shows: 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance , waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
1 See also Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and 
Third in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS ' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be 
discretionary in nature). 
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). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
The Petitioner proposes to work as a registered nurse, and intends to provide nursing care and 
administrative services to the elderly and those with special needs and/or mobility impairments by 
implementing her own unique protocol for elderly care. In our previous decision dismissing the 
Petitioner's appeal, incorporated here by reference, we concluded that the record did not establish the 
national importance of her proposed endeavor, as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar 
framework. Because this conclusion was dispositive of the appeal, we reserved our opinion as to the 
remaining Dhanasar prongs. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not claim that our prior decision dismissing the appeal was based on 
an incorrect application of law or policy or that it was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at 
the time of our decision. Her statement in support of the motion does not point to any factual, legal 
or policy error in our prior decision. In fact, her statement is fundamentally identical to her appellate 
brief and contains no reference to our August 31, 2023 decision dismissing her appeal. 
While the Petitioner continues to maintain she submitted sufficient evidence to establish eligibility for 
the requested classification, she cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by repeating 
arguments that have already been considered in previous decisions; the motion must demonstrate how 
we erred as a matter of law or policy in our last decision. 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"). Here, the Petitioner does not identify any specific error oflaw or policy in our prior 
decision. Rather, she requests a general reconsideration of her eligibility, which is insufficient to meet 
the requirements of motion under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew 
and, therefore, the motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 
In sum, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. As the Petitioner has not met the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider, we affirm our prior conclusion that the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver. We again reserve our opinion 
regarding whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 
429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision 
of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 
n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise 
ineligible). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2