dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-A-
MOTION ON TEXAS SERVICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 31,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a registered nurse, seeks classification either as a member of the professions holding 
an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability. See section 203(b)(2) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). The Petitioner also seeks a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is normally attached to this employment­
based second preference immigrant classification. See section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. We 
specifically and thoroughly discussed the Petitioner's submissions and determined that she did not 
establish eligibility for the uriderlying classification as she did not demonstrate that she is a member 
of the professions or that she qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. In addition, we found 
that the Petitioner did not show that her proposed employment will be national in scope and that she 
will benefit the national interest to a greater extent than an available U.S. worker with the same 
. minimum qualifications. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider is based on the existing record and 
the petitioner may not introduce new facts or new evidence relative to his or her arguments. It 
contests the correctness of the original decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a 
motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new materials. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). It must include specific allegations as to how we erred as a 
matter of fact or law and must be supported by pertinent legal authority. 
The Petitioner, in her motion to reconsider, does not contend that the analysis in our previous 
decision was incorrect or that our finding regarding her eligibility was erroneous, nor does she cite 
any pertinent legal authority to that effect. Instead, she submits an almost identical brief to the one 
Matter of R-A-
on appeal, presenting arguments previously discussed in our dismissal of the appeal. The motion 
does not overcome our decision dismissing the Petitioner's original appeal. 
We also note that, in order to properly file a motion, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) 
requires that the motion must be "[a]ccompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of 
the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, 
nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." The Petitioner does not submit the required 
statement on motion. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of R -A-, ID# 18270 (AAO Aug. 31, 20 16) 
2