dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Power Systems Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 18, 2024 In Re: 33442205 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a power systems engineer, 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 that the Petitioner had not 
established that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 visa classification and that a discretionary 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 a 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. 
The Petitioner seeks to work in the United States as an electrical engineer "specializing in power 
systems through ______________ In dismissing the appeal, we determined 
that the Petitioner qualified for the classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. We, however, concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has 
national importance and thus, he did not meet the national importance requirement of the first prong 
of the Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
On motion, the Petitioner contends that we applied a "stricter than required standard" and "overlooked 
objective and corroborative evidence." The Petitioner references our determinations, portions of his 
personal statement, expert opinion letter, and probative research, and maintains that the evidence 
supports his proposed endeavor's national importance. Except where a different standard is specified 
by law, a petitioner must prove eligibility for the requested immigration benefit by a preponderance 
of the evidence. Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375-76. Under the preponderance of the evidence 
standard, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner's claim is "probably true." Id. at 376. Here, 
the Petitioner states that his record demonstrates his proposed endeavor's national importance and 
requests that we "reconsider the substantial documentation and arguments" that support his proposed 
endeavor. However, the Petitioner does not explain how our specific conclusions applied a stricter 
standard of proof. Furthermore, our appellate decision considered the Petitioner's evidence and his 
proposed endeavor as outlined in the personal statement. We determined that the record does not 
sufficiently demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance. 
The Petitioner also argues that we "erred in not considering precedent decisions," but he mentions 
only Dhanasar. 1 He states that, like Dhanasar, he submitted a probative opinion highlighting his 
work's importance in "advancing U.S. strategic interests in energy sustainability and infrastructure 
development." The Petitioner also argues that he provided probative research emphasizing his work's 
critical nature and its alignment with national initiatives. In our appellate decision, we explained why 
the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar framework. For example, unlike 
the scientific researcher in Dhanasar, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor 
offers broader implications in his field. Here, simply disagreeing with our conclusions, without 
showing how we misapplied law or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence, is 
not sufficient to reconsider our decision. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) 
(finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, the 
same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application oflaw or policy at the time we issued our decision. Accordingly, the motion will 
be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and his 
underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 Our appellate decision specifically considered the Petitioner's eligibility under the Dhanasar analytical framework's first 
prong. To the extent the Petitioner is arguing we did not consider Dhanasar, the Petitioner is incorrect. 
2