dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 19, 2024 In Re: 35731054 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference immigrant classification, as well as a 
national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. We summarily dismissed a subsequent 
appeal because the Petitioner did not specifically identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact in the Director's decision. We next dismissed the Petitioner's first combined motion to reopen 
and motion to reconsider because the Petitioner did not timely file it. We then dismissed the 
Petitioner's second combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider because the Petitioner did 
not establish either new facts demonstrating eligibility, or that we incorrectly applied law or policy to 
the facts at the time we dismissed the prior combined motion, respectively. The matter is now before 
us on a third combined motion to reopen and 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 
combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 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. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
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 most recent, prior combined motion. Here, the Petitioner 
has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the latest prior combined motion. 
Rather, the Petitioner addresses the Director's underlying decision, disregarding our basis for 
summarily dismissing her appeal and for dismissing her prior motions. Because the Petitioner has not 
established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our 
prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition 
remains denied. 
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.S(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Again, 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). However, in the most recent motion to reconsider, the 
Petitioner does not acknowledge the latest prior decision in the proceeding. Instead, as noted above, 
the Petitioner addresses the Director's basis for denying the underlying Form I-140, Immigrant 
Petition for Alien Workers. 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. 
2