dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Operations Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 28, 2023 In Re: 28334129 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a general and operations manager, 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 that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification . See section 
203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2)(B)(i). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that although the 
Petitioner established he qualifies for EB-2 classification as professional holding an advanced degree, 
he did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification would be 
in the national interest. We summarily dismissed the Petitioner 's subsequent appeal concluding that 
he did not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion or law or statement of fact in the unfavorable 
decision as a basis for the 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. 
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. 
In our previous decision summarily dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we emphasized that the 
appellate brief had been copied verbatim from former counsel's letter in response to a request for 
evidence (RFE) and was accompanied by evidence that was an exact copy of the Petitioner's RFE 
response. The Petitioner added that he was requesting "further analysis" of his case but did not address 
the specific findings in the Director's denial. An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily 
dismiss any appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of 
law or statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l)(v) . 
On motion, the Petitioner explains that he resubmitted his RFE response in support of the appeal for 
"further analysis" because he believed he was qualified for the requested benefit and hoped our office 
would review the evidence and reverse the Director's decision. The Petitioner now provides a more 
extensive brief and additional evidence addressing the Director's specific findings with respect to his 
eligibility for the requested benefit under Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), 
which provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. 
Although the Petitioner acknowledges the specific findings that resulted in our decision to summarily 
dismiss his appeal, he does not contend that our previous decision 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. The Petitioner has therefore not overcome our determination that summary dismissal 
was the proper, and required, outcome under 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l)(v) when presented with an appeal 
that contained no specific allegations of error in fact or law. 
The Petitioner's remaining arguments on motion relate to the merits of his immigrant petition and his 
belief that the Director erroneously denied that petition. The Petitioner's opportunity to allege specific 
errors in the Director's denial decision was on appeal. Absent a demonstration that we summarily 
dismissed his appeal in error, we need not reach the merits of the underlying petition here. 
For the reasons discussed, 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, and therefore has not 
shown proper cause for reconsideration. The motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2