dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: APR. 8, 2024 In Re: 30668310 
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 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 Texas Service Center 
Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (petition), concluding that the 
record did not establish that the Petitioner merits a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement 
in the national interest. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal of the Director's denial decision. The Petitioner bears the burden 
of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 
(AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). According to the Instructions for Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion), any new facts and documentary evidence must demonstrate eligibility for the 
required immigration benefit at the time the application or petition was filed. A motion to reopen that 
does not satisfy the applicable requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
A motion to reconsider must: (1) state the reasons for reconsideration, (2) be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decision to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw 
or policy, and (3) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider that does not satisfy these 
requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. ANALYSIS 
When we dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, we laid out his statements regarding his proposed endeavor 
asserted in both the initial filing and in response to the Director's request for evidence, and we 
incorporate them here by reference. 
The Director determined the Petitioner made a material change to his claims relating to his proposed 
endeavor, which precluded him from adequately demonstrating what his endeavor would actually 
consist of because significant alterations were impermissible. When we adjudicated his appeal, we 
agreed with the Director that the amendment the Petitioner made was of such a nature that it was a 
prohibited material change under Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) 
(finding that a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient 
petition conform to USCIS requirements). We further noted that in the appeal, the Petitioner failed to 
address or refute the Director's determination regarding a material change. Based on that shortcoming, 
we cited Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012) and determined he therefore waived 
or abandoned that issue in the appeal. 
And here within the motions, the Petitioner again does not address the material change aspect. Because 
the Petitioner has abandoned one dispositive issue within the Director's decision, even if we agreed 
with every argument he included in his motion and his appeal briefs, the end result would remain the 
same and his petition would remain denied. In other words, after abandoning the dispositive issue, 
the Petitioner's ability to prevail and receive a favorable decision for the petition before us became 
effectively impossible. The Petitioner is, however, free to submit any new arguments and evidence 
with a new petition. 
Because the identified basis included in both the petition's denial and the appeal's dismissal are 
dispositive of these motions, we will not address and we reserve the Petitioner's remaining motion 
arguments. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 332 (2022) (citing INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 
25-26 (1976) (finding agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are 
unnecessary to the ultimate decision)); see also Matter ofChen, 28 I&N Dec. 676, 677 n. l, 678 (BIA 
2023) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
In conclusion, the Petitioner has not submitted new facts supported by documentary evidence 
sufficient to warrant reopening his appeal, nor has he established that our decision to dismiss the appeal 
was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy and that the decision was incorrect based 
on the evidence in the record of proceeding at the time of the decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we should either reopen the proceedings or reconsider our 
decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2