dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 24, 2023 In Re: 27528286 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks second preference 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 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 did not 
demonstrate the proposed endeavor's national importance or that a waiver of the requirement of a job 
offer would 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). The Board of Immigration Appeals generally 
requires that a motion to reconsider assert an error was made at the time of the previous decision. The 
very nature of a motion to reconsider is the claim that the original decision was defective in some regard. 
See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 57 (BIA 2006). And our review on motion is limited to 
reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . By regulation, the scope of a motion is 
limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). Under the above regulations a motion to 
reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. We may grant motions that satisfy 
these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Whilst neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). The Petitioner's brief simply repeats and restates the 
arguments and documents they aver support the national importance of their endeavor that were 
introduced earlier in these proceedings. In determining national importance under Dhanasar, the 
relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will 
work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." 
See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we further noted that "we look for broader 
implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[a ]n undertaking may have a national importance for 
example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field." Id. We also 
stated that "[ a ]n endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial 
positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be 
understood to have national importance." Id at 890. What is critical in determining the national 
importance under Dhanasar is whether the proposed endeavor has a potential prospective impact with 
broader implications which rise to the level of national importance. So it is not what duties or what 
occupation the noncitizen will fill or perform but their actual plan with their occupation and duties that 
is examined. The Petitioner does not state adequate reasons for reconsidering our conclusion that the 
their proposed endeavor does not rise to a level of national importance. They have not supported their 
stated reasons with any pertinent precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy. And they have not established that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 
The record as it is constituted does not support the Petitioner's contention that they are well positioned 
to advance their proposed endeavor. When evaluating whether a petitioner is well positioned to 
advance their proposed endeavor under the Dhanasar framework's second prong, we review the 
following and any other relevant factors: 
• A petitioner's education, skill, knowledge, and record of success in related or similar efforts; 
• A petitioner's model or plan for future activities related to the proposed endeavor that the 
individual developed, or played a significant role in developing; 
• Any progress towards achieving the proposed endeavor; and 
• The interest or support garnered by the individual from potential customers, users, investor, or 
other relevant entities or persons. 
The record contains evidence of the Petitioner's education related to their field of endeavor. But 
simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation does not place a petitioner in a position 
to advance their proposed endeavor. This is only one factor amongst many factors which are evaluated 
together to determine how well positioned a petitioner is to advance a proposed endeavor. It is not 
clear from the totality of the evidence in the record how an individualized consideration of the 
multifactorial analysis under Dhanasar 's second prong would demonstrate how well positioned the 
Petitioner is to advance their proposed endeavor. The record does not adequately describe whether 
the Petitioner's proposed endeavor remained the same as at the time of filing after they changed 
employers. And the record does not reflect how the Petitioner's prior performance of the duties 
described in the experience letters is either a similar effort as that of their proposed endeavor or how 
it constitutes a record of success. The record simply does not indicate any progress to achieving the 
proposed endeavor. And the recommendation letters the Petitioner submitted are not material, 
relevant, or probative evidence in the record of interest or support in the endeavor the Petitioner 
proposed in their petition. So the Petitioner has not demonstrated with material, relevant, and 
probative evidence that they are well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. 
Disagreeing with our conclusions without showing that we erred as a matter of law is not a ground to 
reconsider our decision. See O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 58. The Petitioner has not identified an error in 
2 
our application of law or USCIS policy to our decision on the Petitioner's prior motion. And the 
Petitioner has not demonstrated that our decision was incorrect based on evidence in the record at the 
time we issued our decision. So the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reconsidering previous 
our decision. The motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3