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. § 1153(b )(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed an appeal and a subsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us on motion to reconsider.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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 motion.
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). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit.
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). The Petitioner's contentions in their current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions. See, e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 l&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied.
Because this is a second motion to reconsider, the Petitioner must show that our prior motion dismissal itself contained a legal or policy error. The petitioner must therefore identify a specifical erroneous p. 2 application of law or policy in the prior decision, and authority demonstrating that the decision was incorrect as issued. In this motion, the petitioner again reasserts that we misapplied the analytical framework set forth in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), mischaracterized the evidentiary standards, and failed to apply the preponderance of evidence standard. These arguments are substantively the same as those raised in the frrst combined motion to reopen and reconsider, and they were already evaluated and dismissed. The petitioner does not point to specific examples of where we misapplied the law. The petitioner also does not identify any portion of the prior decision where we applied an incorrect legal standard. A disagreement with our weighing of the evidence does not constitute legal error and is insufficient to sustain a motion to reconsider. We reiterate that the purpose ofa motion to reconsider is to demonstrate a misapplication oflaw or policy in the most recent prior decision, not to re-adjudicate the petition anew. See, e.g., Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&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). 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).
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.
NOTICE: Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act through the issuance of a Form 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.