dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Software Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 30, 2024 In Re: 35389633 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a software developer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner qualifies for the national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. 
The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed because the 
Petitioner had not met the requirements of a motion to reopen or reconsider. The matter is now before 
us on a second combined motion to reopen and 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 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 ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner aims to address and clarify key aspects of his case, particularly that his 
proposed endeavor has national importance and that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor. 
The Petitioner contends that his endeavor has the potential to significantly impact the national 
economy and strengthen the information technology sector in the United States. He also asserts that 
he has extensive leadership experience and has been responsible for leading software development 
projects. In support of his motion, the Petitioner submits a brief along with previously submitted 
documents and additional industry articles and reports, arguing that the record demonstrates his 
proposed endeavor's national importance and that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor. 
A motion's scope is limited to the latest decision in the proceeding. In our prior decision, we noted 
that the Petitioner provided a brief and a previously submitted copy of an evaluation of his education 
and work experience. In the brief, he discussed the framework for adjudicating a national interest 
waiver as provided in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), and contended that he 
satisfied the requirements. However, the Petitioner did not address why our prior dismissal of his 
appeal was incorrect and he did not assert any new facts supported by documentary evidence. Since 
the brief and evidence he submitted did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion 
to reconsider, we dismissed the combined motion pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the Petitioner's submission establishes no error in our prior decision, he reasserts arguments we 
have already considered and found unpersuasive in previous decisions, and he does not assert any new 
facts supported by documentary evidence. Moreover, the Petitioner has not established that our latest 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. 
Accordingly, the motion 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