Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office Date: AUG. 23, 2021
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National Interest Waiver) The Petitioner, a finance manager, 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).
TheDirectoroftheNebraskaServiceCenterdeniedthepetition,concludingthatalthoughthePetitioner qualified for the underlying classification as a member o f the professions holding an advanced degree, she had not established that a waiverofthe requiredjob offer, and thus ofthe labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, which we dismissed. The matter is again before us on a motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief, a letter of recommendation, and a supplemental statement.
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motions to reopen and to reconsider.
Law
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(2). In addition, a motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.
Analysis
As an initial matter, the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the prior adverse decision. Accordingly,weexamineanynewfactsandargumentstotheextentthattheypertaintoour prior dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal.
In our prior decision, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner did not establish the national importanceofherproposedendeavorunderthefirstprongof theDhanasaranalyticalframework. See Matter o f Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). We explained that, similar to our determination in Dhanasar that his "teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly," the Petitioner did not show that her proposed endeavor would "sufficiently extend beyond her employer and future clientele to impact the financial management field or U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance."Proposed endeavor too vague
As we explained in our precedent decision, In detennining whether the proposed endeavor has national impmiance, we consider its potential prospective impact. An undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global implications within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or medical advances. But we do not evaluate prospective impact solely in geographic terms. Instead, we look for broader implications. Even ventures and undertakings that have as their focus one geographic area of the United States may properly be considered to have national importance... An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance.
Id. at 889-90.
On motion, the Petitioner argues that USCIS failed "to follow [a] policyofproviding 'generosity o f spirit' when reviewing applications in light ofthe humanitarian reasons" and "was so strict in not ... providing [a] 'shred of human compassion' especially in this struggling time when an essential person like the petitioner only hopes to continue to work and contribute to this country." The Petitioner also makes general statements such as, "the Petitioner's evidence includes documentation showing that the benefit of her proposed work has broader implications, as the results are disseminated to others in the field," but doesnotprovidedocumentation,suchasresearchpublications,tosupportherclaims. ThePetitionerhas not established the claimed facts with unsupported testimonial evidence alone.Claims not backed by documents
Regarding the evidence submitted on motion, although the recommendation letter is complimentary of the Petitioner and the supplemental statement confirms her dedication to herprofession, this information does not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision or establish her eligibility under the first prongoftheDhanasaranalyticalframework. Further,thePetitionerdoesnotrefertoanylegalauthority to demonstrate that we erred in denying her prior appeal. A moving party must specify the factual and p. 3 legal issues that were decided in error or overlooked in the decision or must show how a change in law materially affects the prior decision. Matter ofO-S-G, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 60 (BIA 2006).
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not shown that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy in dismissing her appeal, nor has she established relevant new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceedings. The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and her underlying petition remains denied.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.