dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUNE 21, 2024 InRe : 31676704 
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 an 
individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this 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 that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner qualifies for classification as an individual of exceptional ability. The Director 
did not comment on whether 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. 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). 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 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). Here, the Petitioner submits no new facts or 
documentary evidence in support of the motion to reopen. For this reason, the motion to reopen must 
be dismissed. 
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. 
The Petitioner generally alleges that the Director "did not give full consideration to the evidence" and 
did "not properly analyze[]" it, which "violat[ ed] the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution." As noted, 
however, our review is limited to reviewing our most recent decision. Here, the Petitioner's statements 
related to the appeal are similarly limited to general assertions that we did "not evaluate all the 
arguments presented" and the evidence was "not properly analyze[d]." 
But the Petitioner has not sufficiently articulated what evidence was not properly analyzed, nor has he 
specifically indicated how we incorrectly applied law or policy in our prior decision. Likewise, 
beyond the Petitioner's vague assertion that the Director violated his Fifth Amendment rights, he does 
not discuss how. For all these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that our prior decision was 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of our decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). As such, the motion to reconsider must 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