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: 35322265 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks 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. 
§ l l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition. We dismissed a subsequent appeal 
because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor in 
accordance with Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), which provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. The matter is now before us on a 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 that does not satisfy the applicable requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The scope of any motion is limited to review of"the prior decision." See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was 1) based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy, and 2) incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). On motion, the Petitioner disagrees with our decision to dismiss her appeal 
and states that she qualifies for a national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree based on the evidence submitted. She reiterates arguments made in support of her 
appeal while requesting a different outcome, stating, as written, that "a careful review of the evidence 
on record will allow for a different and proper conclusion under the standards expected to be applied 
within the legal principles established by §INA 203(b)(2)(B)." She does not, however, explain how 
any law or policy was misapplied in our dismissal of her appeal. As to the Petitioner's reiteration of 
her prior arguments, we addressed those arguments in our earlier decision, and her repetition of the 
same arguments does not show proper cause for reconsideration. Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56 
(BIA 2006) (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). 
The Petitioner has not shown that our prior decision contained errors of law or policy, or that the 
decision was incorrect based on the record at the time of that decision. Therefore, this motion does 
not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider and must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2