dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Supply Chain Management

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 14, 2024 In Re: 33329969 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a supply chain specialist, 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. § l 153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that a waiver of the required 
job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would not be in the national interest. We dismissed a 
subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
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 of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 4 73 (BIA 
1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief, asserting that our dismissal misinterpreted or misapplied 
legal principals or policies, but does not specify which principals and policies were interpreted 
incorrectly. In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we explained that although the 
record indicates the Petitioner has "in-depth technical knowledge and distinguished skills" in supply 
chain management, his expertise relates to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, and does not 
establish the national importance of his endeavor. We concluded that as the Petitioner asserts, there 
may be a shortage of professionals in the industry, but he does not explain how filling his position 
would have a national influence. Finally, we noted that the Petitioner did not sufficiently detail the 
proposed endeavor beyond working in the supply chain industry. As a result, we determined that he 
had not sufficiently established that the proposed endeavor in the United States would have substantial 
merit and national importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 889-890 (AAO 2016). 
The Petitioner states that he has "meticulously provided abundant evidence that extends far beyond 
mere sufficiency, establishing the broad and national significance of his proposed endeavor." The 
Petitioner refers to the letters of support, his progressive accomplishments and the potential job 
opportunity, restating the matters discussed on appeal. Notably, the Petitioner does not directly 
address the conclusions in our decision to dismiss the appeal and does not seek to clarify the details 
of the specific proposed endeavor or provide support as to how it would have national importance. 
Further, the Petitioner alleges a misapplication of law and policy but fails to identify those laws and 
policies in which we erred in our interpretation. Disagreements with our conclusions without showing 
that we erred as a matter of law or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence is 
not a ground to reconsider our decision. See O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 58. The Petitioner's motion 
does not meet the applicable requirements of a motion to reconsider because he does not establish that 
our decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The Petitioner has not shown that we erred as a matter of law or policy. Consequently, we have no 
basis for reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2