dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Skydiving

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 02, 2024 In Re: 35235140 
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 a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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 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 record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. We dismissed a 
subsequent appeal as well as a motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us again on motion to 
reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance 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 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 our appellate decision, we determined that the Petitioner was not eligible for the underlying EB-2 
immigrant classification, nor did he meet the first prong of the analytical framework set forth in Matter 
ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016) 1. Specifically, we acknowledged the Petitioner's 
contentions and documentation submitted on appeal regarding his proposed endeavor of continuing 
his career in the United States as a skydiving instructor, and his claims that his work would impact the 
health of individuals in the U.S. and address a shortage in his field, but we explained that he did not 
establish his endeavor would result in broader implications at a level commensurate with national 
importance, or otherwise result in substantial economic effects. 
1 Because the issue of the Petitioner's ineligibility for the requested irnrnigrant classification was not previously addressed 
in the Director's decision, we did not dismiss the appeal on this basis alone. 
And in our decision dismissing the Petitioner's subsequent motion to reconsider, we acknowledged 
the Petitioner's resubmission of his appeal brief, but explained that it did not address the conclusions 
in our prior decision dismissing his appeal. Accordingly, we dismissed the Petitioner's first motion to 
reconsider because he did not establish that we erred as a matter of law or policy, nor did he establish 
our prior decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
On motion, the Petitioner again submits the same brief initially submitted on appeal with only a 
passing acknowledgement of our dismissal of his motion to reconsider. The Petitioner does not 
identify any error in our decision dismissing the previous motion to reconsider. 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)( 1 )(i), 
(ii). The Petitioner's contentions in his current motion again reargue facts and issues we have already 
considered in our previous decisions. See e.g., Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&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"). 
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 motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2