dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Youth Well-Being

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 18, 2024 In Re: 34206985 
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. § 1l 53(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualifies 
for EB-2 classification, but that he had not established eligibility for a national interest waiver. We 
dismissed the subsequent appeal and motion. 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 I&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 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
Here, the Petitioner asserts their prior motion was denied due to "ineffective assistance from [the 
Petitioner's] former alleged counsel." The Petitioner asserts that these new facts establish eligibility, 
as "[i]t is possible to reopen based upon ineffective assistance that was not provided by an attorney." 
It appears that the Petitioner entered into a contract agreement with an immigration assistance 
company for the response to the request for evidence on the initial petition, the appeal, and the previous 
motion to reconsider. 
Although the Petitioner states he received ineffective assistance on his case, he has not complied with 
the requirements described in Matter ofLozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), or established that their 
former attorney's assistance was so deficient they were prejudiced by the performance . See Matter of 
Melgar, 28 I&N Dec. 169, 171 (BIA 2020). Specifically, a motion alleging ineffective assistance of 
counsel must: 
• Include a noncitizen's affidavit detailing their agreement with the allegedly ineffective 
counsel regarding actions to be taken and any representations by counsel; 
• Demonstrate that the noncitizen informed counsel of the ineffectiveness allegations and 
provided an opportunity to respond; and 
• Indicate whether a complaint was filed with appropriate disciplinary authorities regarding 
any violation of ethical or legal responsibilities, and if not, why not. 
Matter ofLozada, 19 I&N Dec. at 639. 
The record does not show the Petitioner has taken any of the above steps and therefore, we cannot 
determine that he has, in fact, received ineffective assistance in his prior motion to reconsider. 
Aside from the Petitioner's assertion of ineffective assistance and submitting the contracts for 
consulting services, the Petitioner does not identify a new fact, nor does he submit documentary 
evidence of such a fact in support of the motion to reopen. Therefore, it does not satisfy the 
requirements of a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) and the motion to reopen will be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Next, 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. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts his "[p]roposed endeavor and [the Petitioner's] work experience align 
with the criteria established in the Matter of Dhanasar. As such, the prior conclusion was not in 
accordance with the law and policy." The Petitioner asks for reconsideration of the decision but does 
not specifically identify on motion, how we may have incorrectly applied law or policy in our prior 
decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) (limiting the scope of a motion to the latest decision). For 
example, the Petitioner states that the proposed endeavor "contributes significantly to the social, 
physical, and mental well-being of the youth." He also asserts that his proposed endeavor will create 
direct and indirect job opportunities. We previously addressed this assertion, reviewed the record, and 
detennined the Petitioner's proposed endeavor did not rise to the level of national importance. 
The Petitioner does not identify any specific error of law or fact nor does the Petitioner assert that our 
prior decision did not follow the regulations and policy guidance. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established proper grounds for reconsideration. The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a 
motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion must demonstrate how 
we erred as a matter oflaw or policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 l&N Dec. 56, 58 (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 bears the 
burden to demonstrate eligibility or, in this case, the applicability of the law or policy he asserts we 
incorrectly applied in the latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii); 
2 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 T&N Dec. at 3 75-76. On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not 
established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the 
time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior 
motion. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the 
proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. In addition, the Petitioner's contentions in 
the current motion to reconsider merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our 
previous decisions. See e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 58 (. We will not re-adjudicate the 
petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied and the motions will 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. 
3