The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) 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 the Petitioner qualifies for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but she did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. We dismissed the appeal and subsequent combined motions to reopen and motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us on a fourth motion to reopen. The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion.
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome).
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). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen. In dismissing the Petitioner's combined motions, we concluded the Petitioner had not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motions or established proper grounds for reconsideration.
On current motion, the Petitioner highlights her new employment with I 1 and discusses her accomplishments with the company. She also submits an employment verification letter 1 The Petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm 'r 1971). Further, a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter of lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm' r 1998). p. 2 from I Istating that she was hired in April 2024.2 In addition, she provides additional information on her nurse training program.
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. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
Regardless, the Petitioner has not stated new facts or submitted additional evidence to establish that we erred in dismissing our prior motions.