dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Political Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 5, 2024 In Re: 25785420 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a political scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on combined 
motions to reopen and 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 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
The record shows that Petitioner 's proposed endeavor is to offer consulting services as a policy analyst 
and researcher. The Petitioner also seeks to form a company where he will provide translation and 
immigration and citizenship consultancy services related to the Central Asian region. In our decision 
dismissing the appeal, we explained why we will not consider the Petitioner 's materially changed 
proposed endeavor of operating a translation and immigration consulting business. We further noted 
why the Petitioner failed to demonstrate his initial proposed endeavor' s national importance. 
In support of his motion to reopen and motion reconsider, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts 
that our decision was "based on an incorrect application oflaw ." On motion to reopen, the Petitioner 
does not present any new facts and does not submit any new evidence. The Petitioner rather reiterates 
his previous submissions, adds details about his proposed endeavor, and explains why he believes his 
endeavor is nationally important. Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's brief, the Petitioner has 
not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the 
proceedings. 
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. 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner does not explain how we erroneously dismissed his appeal. 
The Petitioner only discusses his proposed endeavor without addressing the specific determinations in 
our last decision. The Petitioner also does not explain how our appellate decision was based on an 
incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
in the record at the time of the decision. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted a brief in support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not 
offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our appellate 
decision. 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, we 
will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2