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. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver under the analytical framework outlined in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). We dismissed a subsequent appeal and a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us again on a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion.
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence.
disagrees with our prior decisions, and asserts that his company is nationally important because the trucking industry plays an essential role in supporting supply chains in the United States. Additionally, on motion he claims that his company will address the shortage of truck drivers in the United States, support national economic security by enhancing supply chain resilience, and positively impact local communities.
Considered together, the new articles do not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, nor do they evidence new facts that are relevant to the issues raised in our dismissal of the Petitioner's combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner previously provided articles addressing the importance of the trucking industry as well as the shortage of truck drivers in the United States, and we explained that this evidence did not establish the broader implications directly attributable to his endeavor.Proposed endeavor too vague The Petitioner has not provided any new facts establishing the national importance of the proposed endeavor, and therefore he has not provided a basis for granting a motion to reopen.
Additionally, while the Petitioner continues to assert that his proposed endeavor has national importance, he does not specifically identify an instance in which we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in arriving at our latest decision. On motion, he continues to primarily rely on the importance of the trucking industry and its collective impact; however, we previously addressed those claims in both of our prior decisions. In our first appellate decision we explained that the importance of these industries did not establish the national importance of his specific endeavor. And again, in our dismissal of his first combined motion to reopen and reconsider, we acknowledged these claims, but explained that, because the Petitioner had not addressed our prior determinations regarding these claims, he did not show that we erred in dismissing his appeal. Similarly, on motion the Petitioner reiterates the same claims regarding his proposed employment and economic benefits without addressing our determination that the record does not provide sufficient support for his hiring projections, considering the claimed shortage of truck drivers in the United States.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Here, beyond generally disagreeing with our conclusions, the Petitioner does not explain how our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Instead, the Petitioner's contentions merely reargue facts and issues we considered in our prior decision. 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").
For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter of law or policy. Consequently, 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).
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.