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

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAY 31, 2023 In Re : 27467651 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability in the sciences , arts, or business . Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C . § l 153(b)(2) . The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver 
of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 
203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S .C. § 1153(b)(2)(B)(i) . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition , concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the profes sions holding an advanced degree but that she 
had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. We dismi ssed the Petitioner 's subsequent 
appeal and three subsequent combined motions. 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 
combined motions . 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2) . The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the 
proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore , we will only consider new evidence to the 
extent that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen . Here , the Petitioner 
provides a brief but does not present new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion . 
Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding , 
we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, 
therefore, the underlying petition remain s denied . 
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). The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision " and "the latest decision in the proceeding ." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) , (ii). The Petitioner's 
contentions in their current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our 
previous decisions. See, e.g. , Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 l&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to 
reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal 
and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). We will not 
re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2