dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Training And Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 11, 2025 InRe : 36385174 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a training and development specialist, seeks employment-based second preference 
(EB-2) classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an 
individual of exceptional ability, 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 that the Petitioner had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The Petitioner filed combined motions to reopen 
and reconsider, which we dismissed because the Petitioner had not met the requirements of a motion 
to reopen or reconsider. The matter is now before us on a second combined motions to reopen and 
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 
motions. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ I03.5(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, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional documents, including a brief, an updated business plan, 
and industry reports and articles on business and entrepreneurship, as well as copies of previously 
submitted evidence. The Petitioner asserts that the new evidence "directly addresses the deficiencies 
cited in the denial letter." Furthermore, the Petitioner claims that the submitted documents 
demonstrate his eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification and the national waiver. 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner qualified for the EB-2 classification 
as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and that the Petitioner's proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit. The Director determined, however, that the Petitioner did not establish 
the proposed endeavor's national importance, that he is well positioned to advance it, and that, on 
balance, it would benefit the United States to waive the job offer requirement. We dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal due to his failure to establish his proposed endeavor's national importance. We 
also dismissed his subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider because he did not meet the filing 
requirements for such motions. The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest 
decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new 
evidence to the extent that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen. Here, the 
Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Because 
the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have 
no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the 
underlying petition remains denied. 
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. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that "the initial decision did not apply the legal standards" of the 
Dhanasar framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). However, it is unclear 
whether the Petitioner is referring to the Director's decision denying the petition or our most recent 
decision dismissing his motions. If the Petitioner is contesting the Director's decision, as previously 
stated, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the 
proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l )(i), (ii). If the Petitioner is instead contesting our most recent 
decision, the Petitioner's submission establishes no error in that decision, as he merely reasserts 
arguments we have already considered and found unpersuasive in our initial decision. See e.g., Matter 
of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("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 Board decision"). Moreover, 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. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted evidence in support of his motion to reopen, the Petitioner has 
not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our 
appellate decision. 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, we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and his underlying petition 
remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2