dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Statistics

U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the 
and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office 
Services 
In Re: 27098448 Date: MAY 12, 2023 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a statistician, seeks second preference immigrant classification, 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 the Petitioner had not 
established eligibility for a national interest waiver under the Dhanasar framework. We dismissed 
the subsequent appeal, concluding the Petitioner had not overcome the Director's finding regarding 
the national importance of the proposed endeavor. The matter is now before us on a motion to 
reconsider. The Petitioner continues to assert she is eligible for a national interest waiver and submits 
a letter in support. In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
requested benefit. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion 
to reconsider. 
A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 
policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reconsider to instances where the petitioner has shown "proper 
cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing 
requirements (such as submission of a properly completed Form I 290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 
with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion 
that does not meet applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). The issue before 
us is whether the Petitioner has established that our decision to dismiss the prior appeal was based on 
an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. We therefore incorporate our prior decision by 
reference and will repeat only certain facts and evidence as necessary to address the Petitioner's claims 
on motion. 
The Petitioner's motion letter states: 
The Service did not give full consideration to the evidence provided by the Petitioner 
along with the first filing and the RFE response, as it should be given. In fact, the 
documents listed by the Service in the denial letter are proof that the Petitioner has 
presented all the necessary documents along with the filing and RFE response, but 
those documents were not properly analyzed by the Service, violating the Fourth 
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as Petitioner provided 
timely and proper notice to his RFE response and to USCIS. In addition, the Service 
disregarded the fact that the Petitioner is a highly skilled STEM professional, and that 
waiving the requirement of a job offer and, thus, a labor certification, would benefit the 
United States. Such waiver is clearly aligned with the best interests of the country, as 
it may- and certainly will - help the U.S. to regain competitiveness in comparison to 
other countries.... [T]he Service denial of this petition is contrary to law or policy, 
and unsupported by the evidence of record. Consequently, the Petitioner respectfully 
requests for the Service to reconsider the adverse decision and reopen the Petitioner's 
Form 1-140 and give full consideration on all the submitted documents. 
A motion to reconsider pertains to our most recent decision. In other words, we examine any new 
arguments to the extent that they pertain to our prior dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. We cannot 
consider new objections to the earlier denial, and the Petitioner cannot use the present filing to make 
new allegations of error at prior stages of the proceeding. Therefore, we do not address the Petitioner's 
assertions of error in the Director's decision, as the filing before us does not entitle the Petitioner to a 
reconsideration of the denial of the petition.1 
The assertion that "the Service" disregarded how "waiving the requirement of a job offer and, thus, a 
labor certification, would benefit the United States" is not a sufficiently specific statement as to how 
the AAO erred as a matter of law or policy and therefore it does not meet the requirements of a motion 
to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Likewise, the Petitioner's opinion that a waiver "is clearly 
aligned with the best interests of the country, as it may - and certainly will - help the U.S. to regain 
competitiveness in comparison to other countries" is silent as to how we erred. Therefore, these 
statements lack the specificity required for a motion to reconsider. 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 l&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). 
Although "the Service disregarded the fact that the Petitioner is a highly skilled STEM professional" 
may be more specific, it still does not identify how we disregarded the Petitioner's skill or how we 
erred as a matter of law or policy. Our prior decision acknowledged the Petitioner's education, skills, 
and knowledge in the field. 2 Therefore, even if the assertion was sufficiently specific as to how we 
erred, we would still find no error in our prior decision. 
1 The Petitioner's use of a general term, "the Service," does not differentiate between the actions of the Texas Service 
Center or the AAO. 
2 Specifically, our prior decision explained that these factors relate to the second prong of the Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N 
Dec. 884 (AAO 2016) precedent decision. 
2 
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not shown that our prior decision contained errors of law 
or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of that decision. Therefore, 
the motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider, and it must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3