dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Operations Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2024 In Re: 29714222 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an operations manager of computerized cuts, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, 
or business. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(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. § 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 of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed the subsequent appeal determining the Petitioner did not establish 
eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, and agreeing with the Director that the record did 
not demonstrate his eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. The matter is now before us 
again on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does 
not constitute "new facts." 
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). 
The scope of any motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding ." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii) . Thus, our analysis for these combined motions is limited to the 
following: (1) whether the Petitioner establishes that the dismissal of the appeal was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy; or (2) whether the Petitioner presents a new fact, supported by 
evidence, that shows proper cause to reopen our appeal decision. 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). Motions for the reopening or reconsideration of immigration proceedings are disfavored 
for the same reasons as petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly 
discovered evidence. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 
(1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 
at 110. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner proposes to continue his work as an operations manager of computerized cuts for 
I Iin Texas. As noted above, the Director denied the approval of this petition. The Director 
determined that the Petitioner had not met the three prongs of the analytical framework set forth in 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We dismissed the appeal affirming the 
Director's detennination that the Petitioner did not meetDhan sar's first prong and reserving argument 
on the second and third prongs.1 We also concluded that the Petitioner had not shown eligibility for 
the underlying EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability. We incorporate our prior 
decisions by reference and will repeat only certain facts and evidence as necessary to address the 
Petitioner 's claims on motion. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision arguing that we erred by 
imposing "an incorrect and stricter" standard of proof when evaluating evidence of the Petitioner's 
exceptional ability and the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The Petitioner maintains 
that he qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, the arts, or 
business and meets the Dhanasar requirements for the national interest waiver. With his motion brief, 
the Petitioner submits new evidence to show his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification and 
to demonstrate the national importance of his proposed endeavor. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
For the underlying EB-2 classification, the Petitioner claimed in the initial petition that he is an 
individual of exceptional ability based on meeting all six of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii). In our appeal decision, we determined that the Petitioner met two of the six criteria, 
academic record under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) and at least ten years of full-time experience in 
his occupation under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B). Since the Petitioner did not meet the initial 
evidentiary criteria by meeting three criterion, we determined he was not an individual of exceptional 
ability.2 
1 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like courts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make "purely advisory findings" and decisions unnecessary to the ultimate decision). 
2 Meeting at least three criteria, however, does not, in and of itself, establish eligibility for this classification. If a petitioner 
does so, we will then conduct a final merits determination to decide whether the evidence in its totality shows that they are 
recognized as having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field. USCIS has 
2 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that we erred in our decision claiming he meets four additional criteria 
and submits new evidence to support his claims, including his new statement to supplement his 
previously provided personal statement; news articles relating to Linux certifications; the constitution 
and bylaws for the Institute of Electrical and Electrons Engineers (IEEE); and an article relating to 
Syracuse University faculty members attaining IEEE fellow recognition. We conclude that our 
decision correctly determined that the Petitioner does not meet the initial evidentiary requirements for 
classification as an individual of exceptional ability, and he did not overcome that determination on 
motion. 
A license to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or 
occupation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C). 
The record includes documentation indicating the Petitioner has been "acknow ledged as" a certified 
junior Linux operator. In our appeal decision, we found, "Although the record included some basic 
information about the Linux computer operating system and what it is used for, it does not show that 
this certification is required for entry into the Petitioner's occupation or is specifically tailored for that 
occupation." On motion, the Petitioner disagrees with our analysis of evidence submitted arguing our 
dismissal of the evidence "goes beyond the regulation established on 8 C.F.R. section 
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(C), which indicates that the Petitioner must demonstrate the possession of ' [a] license 
to practice the profession or certification for a particular profession or occupation." ' ( emphasis 
omitted). He argues that "[the Petitioner's] certification as a [j]unior Linux [o]perator is related to his 
occupation in compliance with the [information technology] regulations and standards" and "validated 
[the Petitioner] to perform maintenance tasks on the command line, install and configure a computer 
running Linux open-source operating system and configure basic networking." 
The Petitioner relies on new evidence, including his supplemental statement and news articles relating 
to Linux certifications . In his supplemental statement he explains, "The role of Operations Manager 
of Computerized Cuts and Fabrication of Metallic Structures is linked with [information technology] 
in several ways, particularly in modern manufacturing environments that heavily rely on technology 
and automation." He points out that information technology knowledge is essential to the use and 
maintenance of the work equipment. The news articles describe the best Linux certifications and the 
relevance of Linux certifications to employers. While Linux certifications may be valued for certain 
information technology occupations, the Petitioner has not shown that such certification is for his 
particular occupation. 
The Petitioner also relies on evidence in the record the o inion of associate,..;;..;..;;.;..i.....;;;..;..;;.....;;..i;;..;;.;..;.;..;;..;..;....;;..;............ _______ ___..~.;;..;;..;;..;;.;;.;.;;_;, 
professor of computer information systems at________ and a letter from.__ _____,
Iopinion indicates that the Petitioner is a certified junior Linux operator and provides a 
brief explanation of Linux. In his explanation of Linux.I Istates, "Linux is an operating 
system that powers the popular Android platform", its use "to run desktops, servers, and embedded 
systems", and [ s Jome services managed through the Linux system include processing, application 
previously confirmed the applicability of a two-part adjudicative approach in the context of individuals of exceptional 
ability. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the evidence is first 
counted and then, if it satisfies the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(8)(2) , https: //www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. 
3 
I 
scheduling, basic peripheral devices, and file systems." The letter from I I sets out the 
Petitioner's job duties, some of which includes programming and management of software for 
computerized numerical control equipment. The evidence provides information about the Linux 
system and certifications, and that some of the Petitioner's job duties include the use of information 
technology; however, the evidence does not show certification as a junior Linux operator is for the 
Petitioner's occupation as an operations manager of computerized cuts. 
The documents submitted with the motion considered with evidence in the record are not sufficient to 
overcome our prior determination that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for this criterion. 
Evidence that the [noncitizen] has commanded a salary, or other renumeration for 
services, which demonstrates exceptional ability. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(D). 
In our appeal decision, we determined that a letter from the Petitioner's former employer stating that 
the Petitioner "would make $3500 monthly" in his position was not sufficient to show his salary or 
renumeration for services. We also determined that a report relating to information technology 
average salaries was not sufficient to show a "basis for comparison to determine that his salary 
demonstrates exceptional abi Iity," si nee the report did not appear to include the Petitioner's occupation 
and the report stated that the salary figures combined many different jobs. 
On appeal, the Petitioner relies on his new supplemental statement to argue that our analysis of the 
comparison report is incorrect. He argues that since the supplemental statement indicates that his work 
as operations manager of computerized cuts for I I is "linked to" information technology, 
''particularly in modem manufacturing environments that heavily rely on technology and automation," 
the report in the record describing information technology salaries should be used as comparison for 
his salary. However, the Petitioner's new supplemental statement on motion does not overcome the 
basis for our decision. The Petitioner's supplemental statement does not show his salary or other 
renumeration for his work. Also, the Petitioner's statement that his work is "linked to" information 
technology does not show the salary information included in the initially submitted report provides a 
sufficient basis for his occupation's salary comparison. 
Therefore, the Petitioner's supplemental statement does not overcome the reasons for the Petitioner 
not meeting this criterion. 
Evidence of membership in professional associations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(E). 
In our appeal decision, we determined the record did not demonstrate that the organization, IEEE, 
qualifies as a professional association. On motion, the Petitioner submitted new evidence, including 
an article relating to Syracuse University faculty members attaining IEEE fellow recognition, and the 
constitution and bylaws for IEEE. Section 1-104.4 of the IEEE bylaws indicates that the basis for 
qualification as a "Member" of IEEE is education or work experience, or a combination of both. As 
stated in our previous decision, "[T]he regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) defines 'profession' as 'any 
occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign equivalent is minimum 
requirement for entry into the occupation."' The by-laws ofIEEE indicate that "Member" qualification is 
based on education or work experience, or a combination of both, instead of a minimum of a U.S. 
bachelor's degree or its foreign equivalent. Therefore, IEEE does not meet the definition of a 
4 
"professional" association under the regulations, as required under the criterion. The new evidence 
submitted on motion does not show new facts to overcome the basis of the appeal decision. 
Evidence of recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the 
industry or field by peers, governmental entities, or professional or business 
organizations. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F). 
We determined in our appeal decision that reference letters from the Petitioner's former employers 
did not show his "significant contributions to the industry or field." The Petitioner disagrees with our 
analysis of the evidence arguing, "[T]he letters were written by respected professionals and 
organizations in the field, which lends credibility to [the Petitioner's] claims. Furthermore, the 
regulation does not specify a quantifiable threshold for what constitutes 'significant' contributions, 
and therefore, this recognition can come in various forms .... [T]he authors have taken steps to 
demonstrate his achievements and contributions to the industry." 
On motion, the Petitioner relies on evidence in the record pointing out specific sections of previously 
considered recommendation letters to support his claims. These sections and the letters in general 
mainly reference the Petitioner's work contributions to his employers and their projects, and broadly 
state he made contributions to the industry and communities. For instance, the letter from I I 
~-----~ of I I states, "[The Petitioner's] significant contributions have 
transformed our Computerized Numerical Control Department." And another letter from I I 
I I of ~------~states, "[The Petitioner] significantly contributed to our 
company and to the development and welfare of the Panamanian public after participating in large­
scale construction projects, guaranteeing the quality of our materials, metal structures, and services." 
Another letter emphasized by the Petitioner also provides general statements of the Petitioner's 
contributions, "Our company is very grateful for the collaboration of [the Petitioner] because his 
knowledge and expertise in the development of this project gave us positive reviews from clients and 
at the same time contributed to the growth of the company and the economy and population of 
I IandI t' 
On motion, the Petitioner did not submit new facts supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). His reasserting previously stated facts and resubmitting the previously provided 
reference letters does not constitute "new facts." Therefore, the Petitioner has not shown a basis to 
reopen the appeal decision for this criterion. 
The Petitioner has not established that he meets three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A) through (F). Thus, he has not demonstrated his qualifications for the EB-2 category 
as an individual of exceptional ability. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Because the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant classification, 
he is not eligible for the national interest waiver. However, since the Petitioner's eligibility for the 
national interest waiver was the sole basis for the Director's initial decision and was addressed on 
appeal, we will discuss the Petitioner's claims on motion. As explained below, we conclude that we 
correctly determined that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the national interest waiver, and 
he has not overcome that determination on motion. 
5 
On motion, the Petitioner maintains we misinterpreted his claims of national importance. He provides 
his new supplemental statement arguing that it helps explain his work and why his work as an 
operations manager of computerized cuts withl Ihas national significance, drives economic 
growth, supports businesses, and fosters job creation. We have reviewed and considered the 
Petitioner's supplemental statement in support of his motion to reopen but conclude that it does not 
meet the filing standards of such a motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
In his supplemental statement, the Petitioner describes his job duties as they relate to information 
technology and his qualifications to perform his work, including digital-electronic calculations; 
software programming and management of modern manufacturing equipment; data collection, 
storage, analysis, and security; and maintaining technology equipment. He further maintains in his 
supplemental statement that his technological knowledge optimizing the production for his employer 
would contribute "to the overall economic growth of the nation." For instance, he attributes his work 
using information technology for his proposed endeavor while working on "massive" and 
"prestigious" projects as "contributing to the advancement of technology in the construction sector" 
which "is crucial for maintaining competitiveness on a global scale and ensuring that the [United 
States] remains at the forefront of technology and innovation." ( emphasis omitted). He further 
proclaims his commitment to supporting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 
would contribute to the growth of the STEM workforce in the United States and would be "crucial for 
sustaining technological progress and driving economic growth." ( emphasis omitted). 
However, the Petitioner's emphasis on his technological knowledge to show his qualifications for his 
proposed endeavor relates to Dhanasar's second prong, which "shifts the focus from the proposed 
endeavor to the foreign national." Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. at 890. The issue here is whether 
the specific endeavor that the Petitioner proposes to undertake has national importance under 
Dhanasar 's first prong. To evaluate whether the Petitioner's proposed endeavor satisfies the national 
importance requirement, we look to evidence documenting the "potential prospective impact" of his 
work. See id. at 889. 
The Petitioner's supplemental statement further describing various aspects of his work related to 
information technology does not overcome the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal to demonstrate 
his claims of national importance. Statements made without supporting documentation are of limited 
probative value and are insufficient to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter of Soffici, 
22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Without further evidence, the Petitioner's 
supplemental statement generally detailing how his work relates to information technology is not 
sufficient to demonstrate his claims that his proposed endeavor would contribute "to the economy, the 
construction industry, technology and innovation, significant projects, the STEM workforce, and the 
nation's competitiveness and infrastructure." Considered with evidence in the record, the statement 
does not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor extends beyond his employer and its clients to impact 
his field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with 
national importance. Beyond general assertions, he has not demonstrated that the work he proposes 
to undertake as an operations manager of computerized cuts for his employer offers original 
innovations that contribute to advancements in his industry or otherwise has broader implications for 
his field. The economic benefits that the Petitioner claims depend on numerous factors and the 
Petitioner did not offer a sufficiently direct evidentiary tie between his proposed work and the claimed 
results. 
6 
On motion, the Petitioner further asserts that our appeal decision dismissed probative research by 
stating reports submitted with the petition do not support the importance of the Petitioner's specific 
proposed endeavor, but instead show the importance of the construction industry. He submits his 
supplemental statement and highlights articles and reports in the record to argue that his work 
responsibilities detailed in the supplemental statement show the potential economic and societal 
benefits of his work. He maintains that his work described in his supplemental statement aligns with 
U.S. government initiatives described in the articles, such as those related to the national economic 
recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. He emphasizes that his professional experience and 
knowledge would not only help these initiatives but would also help the construction industry 
overcome its skilled labor shortage. 
However, the Petitioner's supplemental statement considered with the articles and reports in the record 
does not provide new facts demonstrating the Petitioner's claims of national importance. The 
supplemental statement further describes the Petitioner's technological knowledge with computerized 
cuts and the construction work projects he has worked with for his employer with general claims his 
work has economic and technological importance for the construction industry. As pointed out in our 
appeal decision, the articles and reports in the record do not focus on the Petitioner's specific proposed 
endeavor, instead focusing on government initiatives and the importance of technology and the 
construction industry. 
Submission of the Petitioner's supplemental statement on motion does not establish new facts 
sufficient to overcome our prior determination that the Petitioner has not established the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor to qualify for a national interest waiver. We will therefore 
dismiss the motion to reopen. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. He asserts that we 
misinterpreted his claims of national importance and that in our analysis of national importance, we 
applied a standard stricter than preponderance of the evidence. He also argues we erred and abused 
our discretion by not considering the precedent Dhanasar decision. 
In our discussion of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, our appeal decision 
stated, "[T]he Petitioner focuses on the importance of the construction industry to the United States' 
economy, and notes that his work is 'related to the development of 3D printing technology to space 
exploration, both of which are important areas of focus for the country."' While acknowledging the 
economic benefits and importance of the construction industry, we found the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate the work for his employer would "potentially have broader implications for the industry 
or substantial positive economic effects for the region or nation." We further determined, "[T]he 
evidence does not support the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor on that specific 
field or space exploration." Our decision pointed out, "[T]he focus of the Dhanasar framework's 
first prong is the petitioner's specific endeavor, not the entire industry or field in which they work." 
In his motion brief, the Petitioner disagrees with our assessment of the evidence mainly restating the 
same claims he made on appeal, and he emphasizes evidence we addressed in our prior appeal 
7 
decision. Arguing that evidence in the record shows the national importance of his proposed endeavor, 
his motion brief requotes evidence quoted in his appeal brief. Both briefs quote the same lengthy 
sections of his initial personal statement, professional opinions, and reports and articles relating to 
government initiatives and the construction and information technology fields. For instance, on 
motion, he argues that his initial personal statement explains "the scope of his current and prospective 
positions to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work." Requoting the same lengthy sections 
of his personal statement that he quoted in his appeal brief, he argues his personal statement shows the 
national importance of his work. Similarly, he restates extracts from articles and reports to show the 
prospective potential of his proposed endeavor aligns with national initiatives and would contribute to 
the information technology and construction fields. While the Petitioner disagrees with our analysis 
of the evidence, he does not identify any incorrect application of law or policy. 
The Petitioner also disagrees with our analysis of the professional opinions. Our appeal decision 
explained that instead of focusing on the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, the opinions write "broadly 
about the use of information technology in the construction industry, and mention technologies that 
are not directly related to the proposed endeavor." Asserting the opinions help establish the 
Petitioner's proposed endeavor's credibility and national importance, particularly for those who may 
not have the "technical knowledge or experience in the field," he restates extracts of the opinions, 
which he also included in his appeal brief. The extracts generally describe the importance of 
information technology to the construction industry and its positive economic effects. The Petitioner 
reiterates his appeal arguments by restating, " ... [The Petitioner's] expertise in using information 
technology in the construction industry in the United States can lead to significant improvements in 
efficiency, accuracy, and safety, making it an increasing relevant and valuable tool in the field." 
(emphasis omitted). He asserts that the opinions' broad discussions of the use of information 
technology in the construction industry "can often have significant implications for the proposed 
endeavor." Again, while the Petitioner disagrees with our findings, he does not identify any incorrect 
application of law or policy. 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that we did not consider the Dhanasar precedent decision in our 
evaluation of the evidence. He emphasizes that like Dr. Dhanasar, he "submitted two ... probative 
opinions from experts holding senior positions in academia and industry [sic] that describe the 
importance of his proposed endeavor and, more broadly, the benefits of his work for the United States. 
In addition, [he] submitted probative research to support [the Petitioner's] claims." Also, citing 
Dhanasar and emphasizing Dr. Dhanasar's proposed endeavor was to continue his work as a 
researcher, the Petitioner argues that his intention to continue his work as an operations manager of 
computerized cuts for his employer "has far reach in our country by impacting the construction 
industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance." 
The standard of proof in this proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that a petitioner 
must show that what is claimed is "more likely than not" or "probably" true. Matter of Chawathe, 25 
l&N Dec. at 375-76. To determine whether a petitioner has met the burden under the preponderance 
standard, we consider not only the quantity, but also the quality (including relevance, probative value, 
and credibility) of the evidence. Id.; Matter of E-M-, 20 l&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm'r 1989). Here, 
we properly analyzed the Petitioner's documentation and weighed the evidence to evaluate the 
Petitioner's eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
8 
In addition, the Petitioner has not explained how his work as an operations manager of computerized 
cuts for his employer compares to Dr. Dhanasar's work as an academic researcher who received grants 
from government agencies for his work. The Petitioner's claims that his continuing his work as an 
operations manager of computerized cuts for his employer will benefit the construction industry and 
the United States have not been established through independent and objective evidence. The 
Petitioner's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate his endeavor has the potential to provide 
benefits to the construction industry. The Petitioner must support his assertions with relevant, 
probative, and credible evidence. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. at 376. 
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. The Petitioner's contentions 
in the current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous 
decision. See e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 l&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 purpose of a motion to reconsider is to show error in the most recent prior decision. The 
Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not meet this standard. We addressed the Petitioner's prior 
arguments in our earlier decision, and the Petitioner's repetition of the same arguments does not show 
proper cause for reconsideration. The motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
11. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our dismissal of the appeal was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy warranting reconsideration of our decision; or that a new fact, supported by evidence, 
shows proper cause to reopen our appeal decision. We affirm our previous determination that the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, has not established 
eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, and is thus not eligible for and 
does not merit a national interest waiver. While he also asserts on motion that he meets the second 
and third Dhanasar prongs, we will continue to reserve that issue.3 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. at 25-26. 
9