dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Sciences, Arts Or Business

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23349378 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 16, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability in 
the sciences, arts or business, 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 she 
had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent 
appeal and two subsequent combined motions. 
The matter is now before us again on a third combined motions to reopen and reconsider. In these 
proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motions. 
I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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 proceeding at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The filing before us does not entitle the Petitioner to a reconsideration of the denial of the petition. 
Rather, a motion to reconsider pertains to our most recent decision. Therefore, we cannot consider 
new objections to the Director's denial, and the Petitioner cannot use the present filing to make new 
allegations of error at prior stages of the proceeding. 
The Petitioner continues to assert that she is eligible for a national interest waiver. However, she does 
not contend that our last decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that our 
decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of that decision. Therefore, the motion does not 
meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider, and it must be dismissed. 
11. MOTION TO REOPEN 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). A 
motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons 
as are petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. I NS 
v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988)); see also Selimi 
v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 736, 739 (7th Cir. 2004). There is a strong public interest in bringing proceedings 
to a close as promptly as is consistent with giving both parties a fair opportunity to develop and present 
their respective cases. INS v. Abudu, 485 at 107. 
Based on its discretion, USCIS "has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case" and "should have 
the right to be restrictive." Id. at 108. Granting motions too freely could permit endless delay when 
foreign nationals continuously produce new facts to establish eligibility, which could result in needlessly 
wasting time attending to filing requests. See generally INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 108. The new facts 
must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with all the attendant delays, 
the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-40 (10th Cir. 2013). 
Therefore, a party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 at 110. 
With the current motion, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
In the current motion, the Petitioner does not offer any new evidence or facts. She references previous 
assertions and explanations relating to her eligibility for a national interest waiver. As we have already 
analyzed these in our prior decisions, we conclude that the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for 
reopening the proceedings. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsidering our prior decision, nor has 
she established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2