dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Restaurant Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JULY 30, 2024 In Re: 32367347 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a restaurant manager and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and/or an 
individual of exceptional ability as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this classification. 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 did not 
establish that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification and is not eligible for a discretionary waiver of 
the job offer requirement. We summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal because the Petitioner did 
not submit a brief or additional evidence specifying any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of 
fact in our summary dismissal. We dismissed asubsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider 
because the Petitioner did not submit new evidence sufficient to overcome our summary dismissal and 
he did not establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or 
that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the 
decision. The matter is now before us on another combined motion 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 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, while the Petitioner submits a statement, it generally reiterates the benefits of his 
profession, his qualifications, and the claimed economic impact of his proposed business but it does 
not provide any new evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's determination. As noted 
above, a motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence, that are relevant 
to the issue(s) raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which 
includes the original petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided 
evidence does not constitute "new facts." Further, the Petitioner does not assert that our previous 
decisions were based on an incorrect application of law and/or policy. Upon review, we do not find 
any error or incorrect application of law or policy. 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter of law or policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the 
motions 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 reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2