dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Production Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 21, 2025 In Re: 36063002 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an entrepreneur in the field ofproduction engineering, 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. § l 153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner is eligible for a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. We 
dismissed the appeal and subsequent combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. The matter 
is now before us on a second combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
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 motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). See Matter ofCoelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence 
have the potential to change the outcome). 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). 
We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested 
benefit. 
It is important to note that our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision, which is 
the September 2024 dismissal of the Petitioner's combined motion and not the Director's August 2023 
decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). In dismissing the Petitioner's combined motion, we concluded the 
Petitioner had not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the appeal or established 
proper grounds for reconsideration. 
On current motion, the Petitioner repeats verbatim several of his arguments regarding the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor from his previous combined motion and appeal without 
explaining why we should find these claims any more persuasive than before. In support of the motion 
to reopen, the Petitioner provides additional information about the services his consulting company 
will provide to other businesses, along with articles explaining the benefits of these services. However, 
as we previously explained, we must focus on the Petitioner's particular venture. See Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) ("The first prong, substantial merit and national 
importance, focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake.") 
( emphasis added). The articles may demonstrate the importance of these services for businesses, but 
the Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to show that his specific endeavor would meet the 
national importance element of the first prong under Dhanasar. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. 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, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2