dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Transportation Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 26, 2024 In Re: 35233185 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a 
member of the professions holding an advanced degree or 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. We dismissed a 
subsequently filed appeal as well as a motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us again on 
motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
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 
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. 464,473 (BIA 
1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
In our appellate decision, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not meet the first prong 
of the analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar , 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 
Specifically, we acknowledged the Petitioner's contentions and documentation submitted on appeal, 
but explained that she did not establish her endeavor of operating a business specializing in nationwide 
long-distance freight hauling and transportation services would result in broader implications beyond 
the immediate benefits to her prospective clients at a level commensurate with national importance, 
or otherwise result in substantial economic effects. 
And in our decision dismissing the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, we acknowledged the 
Petitioner's resubmission of her appeal brief, but explained that these arguments were fully addressed 
in our prior decision dismissing her appeal. Accordingly, we dismissed the Petitioner's first motion 
to reconsider because she did not establish that we erred as a matter of law or policy, nor did she 
establish our prior decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of the decision. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
On motion, the Petitioner again submits the same brief initially submitted on appeal with only a 
passing acknowledgement of our dismissal of her motion to reconsider. On motion, the Petitioner 
does not identify any error in our decision dismissing the motion to reconsider. 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). The Petitioner's contentions in their current motion again reargue facts and issues we have already 
considered in our previous decisions. See e.g., Matter of0-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"). We will 
not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2