dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Risk Management Auditing

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 6, 2024 In Re: 35077844 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a retired police colonel and risk management auditor, seeks employment-based second 
preference (EB-2) immigrant 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 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 a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal, and 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). 
In our prior decision, which we incorporate here, we determined that the Petitioner's endeavor did not 
establish it has national importance because the record did not indicate that it would result in 
significant contributions to the field either economically or in the development of important 
contributions to the standards for risk management auditing. Further, although the Petitioner would 
provide services in Business Alliance for Secure Commerce (BASC), an endeavor of substantial merit, 
he did not demonstrate that the benefits of his services would extend beyond his clientele on a national 
level. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits industry articles regarding the importance of BASC and 
coordination of supply chains and he reiterates the importance of the endeavor to national security. 
These articles are similar to those submitted in the initial filing and on appeal. The Petitioner asserts 
that this information establishes his eligibility for the national interest waiver, but as in our assessment 
of the evidence on appeal, these submissions discuss the industry as a whole and do not specifically 
address the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, or how the proposed endeavor would enhance the industry. 
The Petitioner's submission on motion does not overcome our prior conclusion that he has not 
established the national importance of his proposed endeavor to qualify for a national interest waiver. 
The motion to reopen is therefore dismissed as the Petitioner has not met the requirements of such a 
motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
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. 
In the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. He asserts 
that the analysis regarding national importance failed to consider the interconnectedness of the supply 
chain and how BASC standards play a critical role in the fight against transnational crime. While 
agreeing the endeavor has substantial merit, the record does not detail the effect of the Petitioner's 
work on a national level other than to explain that BASC and the implementation of security standards 
are critically important to the supply chain. On appeal, we clarified that although the endeavor would 
provide benefits to individual entities, the record lacks details as to any contributions to the BASC 
standards, improved cooperation between security agencies, or an in-depth analysis of the benefits to 
the economy that would be produced from improved security in the supply chain. 
The Petitioner's motion does not explain how our decision was incorrect according to the Dhanasar 
analysis. The Petitioner claims that our dismissal did not properly evaluate the evidence under the 
teaching analysis discussed in Dhanasar and asserts this prong of the analysis is not applicable in his 
case. However, he does not specify or explain how an alternate analysis would have established his 
eligibility. Further, the assertion that the dismissal focused on a lack of direct references in the articles 
submitted is a mischaracterization of the decision. The dismissal indicated that these articles 
demonstrated the importance of the field in general, but failed to detail how the endeavor would impact 
this area of work. Disagreements with our conclusions without showing that we erred as a matter of 
law or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence is not a ground to reconsider our 
decision. See e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). The Petitioner's motion does 
not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reconsider because he does not establish that our 
decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
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 USCIS 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). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2