dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 03, 2025 In Re: 35754527 
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. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director ofthe 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 Petitioner's appeal and six subsequent motions . 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 
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). We may grant motions that satisfy 
these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 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). 
In our decision dismissing the Petitioner's sixth motion, we stated that it did not meet the requirements 
identified above. We indicated that while the Petitioner expressed disagreement with our conclusions, 
she did not show that we erred as a matter of law in our decision. 
On motion, the Petitioner asks that we reopen the matter "based on newly discovered facts or a change 
in [her] circumstances," but she does not offer new facts supported by evidence or elaborate on any 
change in her circumstances. 
The Petitioner also requests that we "take into account and consideration the totality of [her] 
documentary pieces of evidence" and reconsider all her previously submitted documents. The only 
decision properly before us on motion is our latest decision dismissing her previous motion, and not 
our earlier decisions. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), which limits the available time to file a motion to 
reconsider and requires that motions pertain to "the prior decision," which in this case is our September 
2024 decision. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that our decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or users policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the 
record at the time of the decision. Additionally, the Petitioner has not offered new evidence or facts 
on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our decision. 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our latest decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has she shown that we erred as a matter of law or users policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, the 
motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains 
dismissed, and her underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2