dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Nursing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 25, 2025 In Re: 37237664 
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) 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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner qualifies for 
EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but she did not establish that a waiver of the 
job offer requirement is in the national interest. We dismissed the appeal and subsequent combined 
motions to reopen and motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us on a fourth motion to reopen. 
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 motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for 
the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new 
evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
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). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it 
pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen. In dismissing the Petitioner's 
combined motions, we concluded the Petitioner had not provided new facts to establish that we erred 
in dismissing the prior motions or established proper grounds for reconsideration . 
On current motion, the Petitioner highlights her new employment with I 1 and 
discusses her accomplishments with the company. She also submits an employment verification letter 
1 The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(12); Matter ofKatigbak , 14 I&N Dec. 
45, 49 (Comm 'r 1971). Further, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm' r 1998). 
from I I stating that she was hired in April 2024.2 In addition, she provides additional 
information on her nurse training program. 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior 
motion. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the 
proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew 
and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
Regardless, the Petitioner has not stated new facts or submitted additional evidence to establish that we erred in dismissing 
our prior motions. 
2 The Petitioner filed the petition on July 8, 2022. 
2