dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20636788 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 17, 2022 
Form I-140 , Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, 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. 
§ l l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree but that she 
had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would 
be in the national interest. We dismissed the subsequent appeal, concluding that the Petitioner has not 
sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong of 
the analytical framework described in the precedent decision Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 
(AAO 2016) . The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, which we 
dismissed as the Petitioner did not meet the motion requirements enumerated at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. 1 
The matter is now before us again on a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 2 In 
these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. Section 
291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon review , we will dismiss the combined motions. 
I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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 proceeding at the 
time of the decision . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements 
and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. On motion, the Applicant does not 
1 Our most recent decision in this matter was ID# 17574494 (AAO SEP. 15, 2021 ). 
2 Motions for the reopening or reconsideration of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as petitions 
for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 
323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." 
See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. 
contend that our last decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; therefore, the 
submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. Id. 
II. MOTION TO REOPEN 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). A 
motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Resubmitting previously provided evidence or reasserting previously stated facts do 
not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. The new facts must also be relevant to the grounds 
of the unfavorable decision. 
In our prior decision issued in September 2021, we reaffirmed our determination on appeal that the 
Petitioner had not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor, and thus her 
eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. We limited our 
previous decision on motion to an analysis of the first Dhanasar prong, as there was no constructive 
purpose in addressing her eligibility under the second and third prongs of Dhanasar because it could 
not change the outcome of the motion. 3 We dismissed the Petitioner's motion to reopen because she 
did not present on motion new facts to establish her eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
In the current motion the Petitioner cites previously submitted evidence relating to her eligibility for a 
national interest waiver, which has already been considered in our previous decisions. We incorporate 
our previous analysis of the Petitioner's assertions and evidence provided in support of the dismissed 
motion to reopen. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening the 
proceedings with regard to her eligibility for a national interest waiver. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration of our prior decision, nor 
established eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the 
decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
2