dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Special Needs Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEP. 11, 2024 In Re: 33898075 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a special needs specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 
immigrant 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 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 did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner 's subsequent appeal and motion to reconsider. The 
matter is now before us on a second motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 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 proceedings at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion 
to reconsider. By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and contends we "conducted an arbitrary assessment of the 
evidence, overlooking relevant evidence" and disagrees with our statements regarding national 
importance of her proposed endeavor in the previous motion to reopen. The Petitioner submits a 
motion brief that quotes from her personal statement and opinion letters already in the record. The 
deficiencies in the already submitted evidence have been identified and discussed in our prior 
decisions. 
The current motion brief states that our prior decision lacked thorough analysis; however, the 
Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. Regarding the motion to 
reconsider, we stress again that to establish merit for reconsideration of our latest decision, a petitioner 
must both state the reasons why it believes the most recent decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy; and it must also specifically cite laws, regulations, precedent decisions, 
and/or binding policies it believes we misapplied in our prior decision. The Petitioner cannot meet 
the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion 
must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 
58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in 
essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). 
Accordingly, although we acknowledge that the Petitioner submits a brief, we determine that the 
Petitioner does not directly address the conclusions we reached in our immediate prior decision or 
provide reasons for reconsidering of those conclusions. Likewise, the brief in support of the current 
motion also lacks any cogent argument as to how we misapplied the law or USCIS policy in dismissing 
the appeal. We thoroughly analyzed the Petitioner's evidence and arguments and provided a complete 
decision reaching the correct conclusion. 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not overcome our prior decision or shown proper cause to reconsider 
this matter. On motion to reconsider, 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