The Petitioner, a restaurant manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business, 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).
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the requested EB-2 classification or a national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent appeal as well as a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us again on combined motions to reopen and reconsider.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motions.
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence.
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). Moreover, because the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, we reserved our consideration of his appellate arguments regarding the national interest waiver. 2
In our most recent decision dismissing the Petitioner's combined motion to reopen and reconsider, incorporated here by reference, we determined that the Petitioner did not submit new evidence or new facts that establish eligibility for the requested benefit, nor did the Petitioner identify any error of law or policy in our prior decision. Instead, we concluded that the Petitioner's motion merely reargued facts and issues we considered in our previous decision. Accordingly, we dismissed the Petitioner's combined motions to reopen and reconsider because it did not meet the regulatory requirements. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4)
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief, a copy of our most recent decision dismissing his combined motions to reopen and reconsider, as well as evidence previously submitted before the Director. In his brief, the Petitioner does not address our determination regarding his eligibility for EB-2 immigrant classification, nor does he address the most recent decision dismissing his combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 3 Instead, the Petitioner reiterates the same claims previously made on appeal regarding his eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our most recent decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter of law or policy we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision, and the combined motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). As stated, 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 ofO-S-G-, 24 I&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.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.