dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 13, 2025 In Re: 36904364 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a nurse and nursing management specialist, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for EB-2 classification or for a national interest waiver. On appeal, we concluded 
that the Petitioner was eligible for EB-2 classification but not a national interest waiver. The Petitioner 
then filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider which were dismissed. Next, the Petitioner 
filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider which was also dismissed. 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. 
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 these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested 
benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the 
Petitioner states that we "erred in not considering that the Probative Research contextualizes the 
urgency and demand of [ the Petitioner's] work and that two independent Experts provided compelling 
opinions underscoring the national significance of her proposed endeavor for the United States. 
Moreover, [the Petitioner] submitted a Business Plan for [her] U.S. company and her Nursing License, 
which validates her qualifications and reinforces the credibility of her contributions to the healthcare 
sector. 
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). 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 0-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"). The Petitioner contends our prior decision only discussed job creation and 
the economic impact of her proposed endeavor and disregarded the other areas she states her proposed 
endeavor would impact. However, our prior decision states, "[t]he Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that her work would lead to national advances in the healthcare field," which encompasses the other 
areas of her business plan; concluding that the record establishes the impact of her proposed endeavor 
would be limited to her clients and would not have a broader impact to the healthcare field as is 
required by the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 
(AAO 2016). 
In addition, the Petitioner asserts that the expert opinion letters in the record are admissible evidence. 
Our prior decision addresses the expert opinion letters stating that we did not disregard the letters but 
found that they did not support the claim of the national importance of her specific proposed endeavor. 
In addition, we concluded that the Petitioner did not "elaborate this claim or explain how an alternate 
analysis of the record would have established her eligibility." The Petitioner has not established that 
this decision was incorrect but reargues similar points that have already been addressed in our prior 
decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains 
denied. 
On motion to reconsider, 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. Therefore, the motion will 
be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2