dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Youth Ministry

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 20503275 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 25 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a youth minister, 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 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 a subsequent appeal, concludingthatthe Petitioner had not established 
that the proposed endeavor has national importance, reserving other eligibility criteria issues. The 
matter is before us again on a combined motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion . 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead , "new facts" are facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion and 
that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original application. 
Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 
"new facts." 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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 do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion 
to reconsider. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, although we found that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, we found that 
the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the 
first prong of Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 On combined motion, the 
Petitioner asse1is that her "activities will be of national importance and will undoubtedly reach all 
parts of the United States." We address the combined motion separately below. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
New evidence in support of the motion to reopen includes the following: (1) a one-page letter from 
the senior pastor of the I Church of Christ; (2) a one-page letter from the senior pastor of 
______ (3) a one-page letter from the coordinator of and (4) a 
personal statement from the Petitioner dated October 2021. 
None of the new evidence presents new facts that are relevant to the issues raised on motion and that 
have not been previously submitted in the proceeding. The letters from the respective organizations 
largely consist oflanguage that is identical to language in letters already in the record, including letters 
submitted in support of the appeal. Because the letters reassert, verbatim, information already in the 
record, they do not present new facts. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(2). Moreover, the letters and the 
Petitioner's new personal statement address the Petitioner's recent activities, occurring after the 
petition filing date in 2018. A petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing a visa petition. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visapetitionmaynotbe approvedatafuturedateafterapetitionerbecomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). 
Therefore, even if the letters presented new facts, to the extent that they address the Petitioner's 
activities after the petition filing date, they could not establish eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ); 
see also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
Because the evidence submitted in support of the motion to reopen does not present new facts that 
establish eligibility at the time of filing, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2), (a)(4); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(1); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
Turning to the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner does not identify a law or policy that we may have 
incorrectly applied in the underlying motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Instead, the Petitioner 
discusses only her endeavor and the letters addressed above. 
The Petitioner has not established on motion that we misapplied a law or policy and that our decision 
was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision; therefore, 
we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. Id. 
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied the first Dhanasar prong on motion, we need not address 
whether she has satisfied the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 
1 SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration on the three prongs. 
2 
24, 25 (197 6) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which 
is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 
2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we 
conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest 
waiver as a matter of discretion. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3