dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Education

(b)(6)
DATE: 
NOV 0 5 2013 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service: 
Administrative Appeals Office ' (AAO) 
20 Massachusens Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
OFFICE: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER : 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: . 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All of the documents 
related to this matter have been returned to the office that originally decided your case. Please be advised 
that any further inquiry that you might have concerning your case must be made to that office. 
If you believe the AAO inappropriately applied the law in reaching its decision, or you have additional 
information that you wish to have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen in 
accord ance with the instructions on Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $630. The 
specific requirements for filing such a motion can be found at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file any motion 
directly with the AAO. Please be aware that 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) requires any motion to be filed within 
30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen. 
Thank you, 
7 Ron Rosen be 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The AAO dismissed the petitioner's appeal from that decision. The matter is now before the 
AAO on a motion to reconsider. The AAO will dismiss the motion. 
The petitioner filed the Form I-140 petition on May 2, 2012, seeking classification under section 
203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree. The etitioner seeks employment as an elementary special 
education teacher for At the time she filed the 
petition, the petitioner taught at Maryland. The 
petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director denied the petition on October 
27, 2012, having found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. The AAO dismissed 
the petitioner's appeal from that decision on March 18, 2013. 
The petitioner had filed the petition and appeal through attorney . There is no 
indication that Mr. participated in the preparation or filing of the motion to reconsider, and the 
motion does not include a newly executed Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or 
Representative, to indicate that Mr. still represents the petitioner. The AAO will therefore 
consider the petitioner to be self-represented on motion. 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an 
application or petition must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not 
meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(4). 
On motion, the petitioner does not claim that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or USCIS policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the 
initial decision. She states: 
I wholeheartedly accept your decision Sir. But with humble hopes as well, I am filing a 
motion to reconsider for personal reasons ... : 
1. For my [youngerl daughter ... to finish her College Degree through an Honors 
program at 
2. For my [elder] daughter ... to at least finish her projects with work[;] 
3. That I will be given enough time to settle all my loans and debts here in the US and 
the Philippines before the US decide [sic] us (whole family) to go home . 
. . . (P]lease let me continue to work until my children finish their studies. You may not 
issue a green card which is fine but please just let my children finish their schooling and 
push through their goals for the next 3 years .... 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
Sir, please let me work for 3 to 4 more years so I will be prepared to go home. This I 
promise to do wholeheartedly when I am totally ready (i.e., debt-free and children 
finish school). 
The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to contest the correctness of the original decision based on 
the previously established factual record. A motion to reconsider based on a legal argument that 
could have been raised earlier in the proceedings will be denied. See Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N 
Dec. 216, 219-20 (BIA 1990, 1991). The "reasons for reconsideration " that may be raised in a 
motion to reconsider should flow from new law or a de novo legal determination reached by the 
AAO in its decision that could not have been addressed by the party. Matter of 0-S-G- , 24 I&N 
Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) . Further, 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 decision. !d. at 58. Instead, the moving party must specify the factual and 
legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in the initial decision or must 
show how a change in law materially affects the prior decision. !d. at 60. 
In this instance, the petitioner does not contest the decision or allege any error of fact or law. Instead, 
the petitioner seeks favorable treatment based on family considerations. There is no provision of law 
or regulation to allow reconsideration on this basis. The national interest waiver is not a humanitarian 
provision, and neither is the motion to reconsider. The petitioner's stated desire to remain in the United 
States is not grounds for approval of the petition, or a basis to reconsider the prior decision. 
The petitioner requests that, if she and her family cannot remain permanently in the United States, they 
should at least be able to stay long enough for her adult daughters (born in 1991 and 1992, 
respectively) to complete their studies. This is not the benefit that the petitioner sought when she filed 
the employment-based immigrant petition. 
There exists no mechanism whereby USCIS can convert the petitioner's denied immigrant petition into 
an unspecified status for her daughters. The denial of the present petition does not prohibit the 
petitioner and her daughters from seeking immigrant or nonimmigrant statu's through other means. 
The petitioner' s submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. The regulation 
at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(4) therefore requires the dismissal of the motion. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed.