dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 30, 2024 In Re: 32516764 
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, 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 qualified 
for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not 
established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We summarily dismissed his appeal because the Petitioner did not submit a timely 
brief or additional evidence specifying any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in our 
summary dismissal. We subsequently dismissed combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The 
matter is now before us on 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). 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). Because the scope of a motion is 
limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy the 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 prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we explained that the Petitioner's appeal was not 
accompanied by a brief and/or additional evidence, nor was it submitted to the Administrative Appeals 
Office (AAO) within 30 calendar days of filling the appeal, and that the record did not reflect that the 
AAO received those materials within that period. We acknowledged the Petitioner's contention in his 
previous motion that he mailed his brief and additional evidence; however, we noted that he had 
incorrectly sent the brief in support of his appeal to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) Phoenix Lockbox and not the AAO, as required. As such, we concluded that the Petitioner 
had not overcome our summary dismissal of his appeal and dismissed his combined motions to reopen 
and reconsider. 1 
With the instant motions, the Petitioner provides a brief, again outlining his contention that he meets 
the requirements for his requested classification, but does not acknowledge our prior decision, or 
contend that it was erroneous. 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 to 
reopen. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the 
proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. The Petitioner's brief in his current motion 
merely restates facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions. 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"). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, 
the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 In our prior decision, we fmther noted that a careful review of the brief was conducted and concluded that it generally 
reiterated the benefits of the Petitioner's profession, his qualifications, and the claimed economic impacts of his proposed 
business but did not provide any new evidence or arguments which overcame the Director's determination. We also noted 
that the supplemental brief did not identify specifically any erroneous conclusion or statement of fact in the Director's 
decision and did not specifically address the reasons for the denial of his petition as outlined in the Director's decision. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
2