dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Transport And Logistics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 24, 2024 In Re: 34456304 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner identifies himself as an entrepreneur who is the founding owner of a transport and 
logistics business. He 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that although the Petitioner 
qualifies as an advanced degree professional, he did not establish eligibility for a national interest 
waiver under the analytical framework outlined in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
We dismissed a subsequent appeal, concluding that the Petitioner did not overcome the Director's 
findings on the issue of the proposed endeavor's national importance. 1 We also pointed to 
inconsistencies concerning the Petitioner's prior employment, which led us to question whether the 
Petitioner obtained at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience "in the specialty," 
despite the Director's favorable finding that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. Nevertheless, because we deemed national importance as the dispositive 
issue on appeal, we did not make a final determination regarding the Petitioner's qualification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and we also reserved any further discussion 
of the second and third prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The matter is now before us on 
a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
combined motion. 
First, we will address the Petitioner's motion to reopen. 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. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
1 The Director determine that the evidence established the substantial merit of the Petitioner's endeavor. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a new statement in which he addresses his prior work experience 
and our observations on the issue of whether he satisfied the regulatory condition requiring at least 
five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience "in the specialty." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). 
However, as discussed above in our procedural summary of this matter, in our prior decision we did 
not make a final determination as to whether the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree. Rather, we dismissed the appeal based on an entirely separate issue 
concerning the first prong element of the proposed endeavor's national importance, which the 
Petitioner does not address in his new statement. And although the Petitioner also provides a motion 
brief: the brief does not identify any new facts concerning the national importance of the proposed 
endeavor. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not provided a basis for granting a motion to reopen. 
Next, we tum to the Petitioner's motion to reconsider. 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 continues to assert that his proposed endeavor has national importance, 
relying on previously raised arguments as the basis for the motion. For instance, the Petitioner states 
that "[t]ransportation and logistics are matters of national importance" and that his endeavor would 
"benefit[] local communities ... by improving transportation access to remote or underserved areas" 
as well as having "the potential to make significant contributions to the U.S. economy and society." 
However, aside from generally disagreeing with our determination on the national importance 
element, the Petitioner does not specifically identify an instance in which we incorrectly applied the 
law or USCTS policy in arriving at our decision, which included several adverse findings. For instance, 
we questioned the reliability of the hiring projections in the Petitioner's business plan, noting that the 
Petitioner did not explain how he plans to recruit 16 truck drivers in a five-year period given the stated 
shortage of truck drivers. We also pointed out that the expert opinion letter the Petitioner submitted 
provided conclusory statements about the importance of the trucking and logistics fields and we 
determined that the record lacked evidence showing how the economic activity from the proposed 
endeavor would rise to the level of national importance. The Petitioner did not address any of these 
findings or explain how we erred in dismissing the appeal. 
Lastly, the Petitioner argues that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor and that he has therefore 
satisfied the second prong under the Dhanasar analytical framework. However, as previously noted, 
we dismissed the appeal based on the issue of national importance and declined to make a final 
determination on any of the other issues discussed in the denial. As discussed herein, the Petitioner 
has not established that we erred in dismissing the appeal based on the evidentiary deficiencies 
pertaining to the national importance element. 
In sum, although the Petitioner has submitted a new statement and brief in support of the motion to 
reopen, he has not established eligibility. And regarding the 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. As stated above, the Petitioner's contentions merely reargue facts and 
issues we considered in our prior decision. See e.g., Matter ofO-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 
2 
presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). 
We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
In light of the deficiencies discussed above, the combined motion to reopen and reconsider will be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3