dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 20, 2023 In Re: 27886202 
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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the record did not 
establish that 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 reopen . 
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 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). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a reference letter froml !director o~ II I The Petitioner asserts that the letter is a new fact establishing their eligibility for EB-2 
classification. They further cite a line of unpublished non-precedent decisions they claim support the 
submission of "new evidence." 
The letter the Petitioner submits is not a new fact warranting reopening proceedings here. We interpret 
"new facts" to mean those that are relevant to the issues raised on motion and that have not been 
previously submitted in the proceeding . Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously 
provided evidence does not constitute submission of "new facts." 
The Director's decision to deny the petition considered a letter present in the record from the same 
entity in the Petitioner's favor. Our previous decision upholding the Director's decision concluded 
that the Petitioner had not sufficiently established the national importance of their endeavor under the 
first prong of the analytical framework we first explicated in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 
889 (AAO 2016). The letter the Petitioner submits on motion to reopen is not documentary evidence 
of a new fact corresponding to the potential prospective impact of the Petitioner's endeavor such as 
broader implications of national importance or substantial positive economic effects that would have 
the potential to change the outcome of this matter. 
All parties to a matter deserve an opportunity to be heard. But once proceedings provide that fair 
opportunity, a strong interest exists to bring the matter to a close. INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107 
(1988). The Petitioner does not provide any new facts that relate to our previous decision dismissing 
the Petitioner's appeal. 
Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner has not established eligibility. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2