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: 27988072 
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 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). 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. 
On motion to reconsider , the Petitioners states that we did not consider all the evidence that they 
submitted in support of the petition. The Petitioner 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 of0-S-G-, 24 l&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."). 
We also 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 reconsider our 
previous decision. 
The Petitioner requests that we "reconsider the adverse decision [on your] Form I-140 and give foll 
consideration on all the submitted documents." The Petitioner does not, however, explain with any 
specificity how we failed to do so in our decision dismissing the appeal. We stress again that 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 motion to 
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). 
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will 
be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2