dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 04, 2023 In Re: 29156346 
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 the evidence in the record 
did not support a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. 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 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). See also Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new 
evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 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. 
We conclude that the Petitioner's objections generally alleging that we erred in dismissing their appeal 
without identifying any specific errors on our part in doing so are insufficient to reopen or reconsider 
our previous decision. The Petitioner also states that we did not consider all the evidence that they 
submitted in support of the petition. The Petitioner requests that we reopen or reconsider "the adverse 
decision [on your] Form 1-140 and ... give full consideration on all the submitted documents." The 
Petitioner does not, however, explain with any specificity how we failed to "give full consideration" 
in our decision dismissing the appeal. To reopen the previous proceedings, the Petitioner must state 
new facts supported by documentary evidence demonstrating a potential to change the outcome. See 
Matter ofCoehlo, 20 l&N Dec. at 473. And to establish merit for reconsideration of our latest decision, 
the Petitioner must both state the reasons why they believe the most recent decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy and must also specifically cite the laws, regulations, precedent 
decisions, and/or binding policies they believe we misapplied in our prior decision. A petitioner 
cannot meet the requirements of a reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion 
must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 
56-58 (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, 
the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). 
The Petitioner also alleges that their previously submitted documents "were not properly analyzed by 
the Service, violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America." 
The Fourth Amendment in part prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. 
IV. We conclude the Petitioner's citation to the Fourth Amendment is not relevant to the matter at 
hand as they have not explained how we violated the Fourth Amendment in dismissing their appeal. 
Citing to an authority that is not relevant to the grounds of the unfavorable decision will not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("A 
motion to reconsider is not a mechanism by which a party may file a new brief before the Board raising 
additional legal arguments that are unrelated to those issues raised before the Immigration Judge and 
on appeal."). 
The Petitioner has not submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen nor have they 
established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the 
time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2