dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Veterinary Medicine

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 19, 2024 In Re: 35037201 
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 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner 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 on the same basis. The matter is now before 
us again on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawath e, 25 l&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). 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 incorporate our prior decision by 
reference and will repeat only certain facts and evidence as necessary to address the Petitioner 's claims 
on motion. 
Initially, the Petitioner stated that her proposed employment was "veterinary assistant" and the duties 
of her proposed endeavor were to "feed, water, and examine pets and other non farm animals for sign is 
(sic) of illness, disease, or injury." In the November 2022 statement accompanying the petition, the 
Petitioner stated that her proposed endeavor was to establish a veterinary clinic. The services offered 
by the veterinary clinic included animal aesthetics, hygiene, physical care, vaccinations, animal 
welfare and health, preparation of animals for fairs, auctions, and contests, semen extraction and 
fertilization, export and import assistance, verification of norms, rules, necessary care, and 
documentation, and emergency and hospitalization services. 
With the instant motion, the Petitioner submits a detailed statement addressing the substantial merit 
and national importance of her proposed endeavor. In summary, the Petitioner asserts that her 
veterinary clinic will offer a comprehensive and innovative approach to animal care, offering 
specialized consultations to emergency treatments to advanced therapies, including ozone therapy, 
advanced fluid therapy; international animal transportation initiatives; and partnerships with other 
veterinary clinics and hospitals, academic institutions, and veterinary research centers, to expand the 
reach and influence of the innovations and practices developed at the clinic. The Petitioner also 
contends that the clinic will participate in international conferences and workshops, sharing its 
discoveries and innovations with the global veterinary community. In addition to the creation ofjobs, 
the Petitioner contends that the clinic will partner with vocational schools and veterinary training 
programs to offer internships and professional development programs, and will contribute to the 
growth of veterinary tourism, which, in tum, will impact other economic sectors, including hotels, 
restaurants, and transportation services. The Petitioner also contends that the clinic will implement a 
biohazard waste management system that contributes to environmental preservation and will invest in 
emerging technologies such as veterinary telemedicine. 
Although we have considered the merits of the Petitioner's contentions on motion, we note that, in 
general, material changes made after the filing of a petition need not be considered. See Matter of 
Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). In Matter ofIzwnmi, the petitioner submitted 
numerous revisions to a partnership agreement following the director's denial, some of which were 
made specifically to address the "objected-to" provisions and were intended to "render the instant 
petition approvable." Id. at 175. We concluded that those amendments would not be considered in 
adjudicating the petition, because "a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has 
already been filed in an effort to make an apparently deficient petition conform to Service 
requirements." Id. at 375-76. Similarly, here, we conclude that the Petitioner's statements on motion 
regarding her proposed endeavor amount to an attempt to correct a deficient petition after filing. 
Therefore, we "cannot consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." 
Id. 
As to the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, the Petitioner does not claim that our decision to dismiss 
the appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and 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). As stated 
above, our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). To 
succeed on motion, the Petitioner must first establish that our dismissal of the appeal was based on an 
incorrectly applied law or policy, which she has not done. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (a)(3). The 
Petitioner has not met the regulatory requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
We find that the Petitioner has not submitted new facts supported by documentary evidence sufficient 
to warrant reopening the appeal or established that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the 
record of proceedings at the time of the decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2