dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 20, 2023 In Re: 29262597 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a supply chain specialist and entrepreneur in the event services industry, seeks 
employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as 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 Acting Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not establish that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement, and thus of the labor 
certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal affirming the Acting 
Director's decision and also concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the requested 
EB-2 classification as a member of the professions possessing an advanced degree, or as an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. The matter is now before us on a 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). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief with no new evidence and asserts that our prior decision was 
"based on erroneous applications of law and precedents ." Specifically, the Petitioner asserts that we 
"unnecessarily" reviewed the Acting Director's decision that he established qualification as an 
individual with exceptional ability. The Petitioner also notes that in our dismissal of the appeal we 
described him as an applicant for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the sciences, 
art, or business, and "applied the wrong criteria" in analyzing his eligibility. Additionally , the 
Petitioner asserts that we did not consider "robust evidence such as Business Plan, industry reports, 
and articles, along with other substantial evidence that, more likely than not, the proposed endeavor is 
one of national importance." 
At the outset, and as we noted in our prior decision, we review the questions in matters on appeal de 
novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537,537 n.2 (AAO 2015). The AAO 's de novo authority 
is well recognized by the federal courts. See Soltane v. DOJ, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
Therefore, our review of the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested classification was not in error. 
We agree that here, the Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability in the 
sciences, arts, or business. Although our prior decision incorrectly stated that the Petitioner did not 
establish eligibility for classification as an individual with extraordinary ability, 1 rather than 
exceptional ability, the error was typographical only and not in the overall analysis of the Petitioner's 
eligibility. We disagree with the Petitioner that we "applied the wrong criteria" in our analysis of the 
Petitioner's eligibility. Our dismissal of the appeal correctly references the criteria that establish 
eligibility as an individual with exceptional ability set forth under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F) 
and provides a detailed discussion of each. The Petitioner does not identify any instance in our 
decision that the criteria demonstrating extraordinary ability set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) was 
applied to the Petitioner or discussed in our analysis of his eligibility. We conclude, therefore, that 
the incorrect mention of extraordinary ability in our decision was not an incorrect application of law 
or policy. 
While we acknowledge the Petitioner's assertion that we did not consider certain evidence 
demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor, our prior decision discusses the 
evidence the Petitioner identifies on motion and explains the deficiencies in detail. The Petitioner 
does not address our discussion or the deficiencies on motion or explain how we erred in our review 
of this evidence. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established proper grounds for reconsideration. 
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). 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 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 must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have risen to the very top 
of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). See also Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). 
2