The Petitioner, a healthcare and life sciences management specialist , 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 qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and we dismissed the appeal. We also dismissed the subsequently filed motion to reopen. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. Withthemotion,thePetitionersubmitsabrief.
In these proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion.
Law
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(l)(i). The filing before us is not a motion to reconsider the denial of the petition. Instead, it is a motion to reconsiderourmostrecentdecision. In other words, we examine any new arguments to the extentthat theypertainto ourpriordismissalofthePetitioner'smotionto reopen. Therefore,wecannotconsider new objections to the earlier denial, and the Petitioner cannot use the present filing to make new allegations of error at prior stages of the proceeding.
A motion to reconsider must 1) state the reasons for reconsideration, 2) establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy, and 3) establish that the decision was incorrectbasedontheevidenceintherecordatthetimeofthedecision. 8C.F.R. §103.5(a)(3). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) generally provides that a motion to reconsider asserts that at the In his motion to reopen, the Petitioner stated that he is "currently a market research manager." p. 2 time of the previous decision, an error was made. It questions the decision for alleged errors in appraisingthefactsandthelaw. Theverynatureofamotiontoreconsideristhattheoriginaldecision was defective in some regard. See Matter a/Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399,402 (BIA 1991).
Analysis
As we explained in our prior dismissal, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts and we may grant the motion if it satisfies the requirements at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) and establishes eligibility for the requested benefit (emphasis added). In dismissing the motion, we discussed the submitted evidence and concluded that it did "not show the national importance of his specific proposed endeavor," as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis and, thus, the Petitioner had "not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion." Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016),2 states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion3, grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1)thattheforeignnational'sproposedendeavorhasbothsubstantialmeritandnational importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer In the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner disagrees with our prior decision, but fails to establish that it was 1) based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy and 2) incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time ofthe decision. For example, the Petitioner argues that to determine national imp01iance we should consider the endeavor's benefit to society.
As we explained in Dhanasar, and thus of a labor certification.
The endeavor's merit may be demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, health, or education. Evidence that the endeavor has the potential to create a significant economic impact may be favorable but is not required, as an endeavor's merit may be established without immediate or quantifiable economic impact.For example, endeavors related to research, pure science, and the furtherance o f h u m a n k n o w l e d g e m a y q u a l i f y , w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e p o t e n t i a l a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s i n t h o s e fields are likely to translate into economic benefits for the United States.
In determining whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, 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 deny a nationalinterestwaiverto be discretionaiy in nature).
In announcing this new framework, we vacated ourpriorprecedent decision, Mattera/New York State Depmtmentof Transportation, 22 T&NDec. 215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (NYSD01).
See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthesethreeprongs. p. 3 the United States may properly be considered to have national importance. In modifying this prong to assess "national importance" rather than "national in scope," as used in NYSDOT, we seek to avoid overemphasis on the geographic breadth of the endeavor. An endeavor 1hat 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.
While we may agree with the Petitioner that Dhanasar does not provide an exhaustive list of examples to establish national importance, he has not sufficiently established that the societal impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance consistent with the analysis provided in our precedent decision. It is also important to note that in our dismissal ofthe Petitioner's appeaL we affirmed the Director's determination that his endeavor has substantial merit citing to his explanation of the proposed endeavor and the "submitted information about prostate cancer, [his employer's] products and services, the role of entrepreneurs in driving global economic growth, the lack of an understanding of translational science as an obstacle to drug development, and the necessity for innovation in the healthcare industry."
The Petitioner also asserts that we should consider "information about [his] current and prospective positions to illustrate the capacity in which [he] intend[s] to continue to work" to establish the national importanceofhisproposedendeavor. However,wespecificallyinformedthePetitionerthat"wewill consider information about his current and prospective positions to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work." Notably, not only did he use the same language from our decision in both his current and prior brief, but he appeared to acknowledge and approve our consideration of this information in his motion to reopen as he quoted it directly, followed by the word "Yesl ."
Finally, the Petitioner asserts that the articles he submitted were related to his specific endeavor and not the industry or profession as a whole because "commercialization of translational research is not an industry, neither is it a profession, it is an endeavor or an undertaking."Argued the field's importance, not the endeavor's As we explained, however, the provided evidence, such as the submitted articles, "relates to the overall importance of the commercialization and innovation stage from research rather than identifying and establishing the national importance o fhis spec[fic proposed endeavor." (Emphasis added).
Without more, we cannot conclude that the Petitioner has demonstrated the national imp01iance of his proposedendeavor. Inaddition,thePetitionerhasnotestablishedthatourpriordecision,thedismissal of his motion to reopen, was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.