The Petitioner, a legal consultant, seeks classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2). The Petitioner also seeks a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b )(2)(B)(i). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, when it is in the national interest to do so.
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The Director also concluded that the Petitioner did not show that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The Petitioner then filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed. The matter is again before us on combined motions to reopen and 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 motions.
A. Motion to Reopen
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 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).
In our appellate decision, we acknowledged that the Petitioner's Brazilian "Bachelor of Laws" diploma, underlying school record, and academic evaluation demonstrated that she has a foreign-equivalent bachelor's degree. However, we determined that the Petitioner's evidence did not support a finding that at the time she filed the petition, she had "a United States baccalaureate degree p. 2 or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). We observed deficiencies in the experience letters she provided, noting that the letters from the claimed employers lacked specific dates and descriptions of the work done by or with her and lacked supporting evidence ofthe ongoing nature of her own business during the relevant time period. 1
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the documentation previously submitted establishes her eligibility as an advanced degree professional. However, we previously determined that the reference letters from her former employers and colleagues did not collectively demonstrate the required five years of qualifying experience. Specifically, we noted that the letters from the Petitioner's claimed employers lacked specific dates and descriptions of the work done by or with her, and we further determined that the remaining letters were from colleagues, not from former employers as required, and therefore were afforded limited evidentiary weight. In addition, we noted several inconsistencies between the information contained in the letters and the Petitioner's own statements regarding her employment history, which cast doubt on the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence.Inconsistencies in the record See Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). On motion, the Petitioner does not submit any new evidence and does not assert any new facts supported by documentary evidence that establish her eligibility as an advanced degree professional or otherwise refute our determination to the contrary.
Regarding the Petitioner's assertion on motion that she alternatively qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability, we again decline to consider this assertion. As noted initially in our appellate decision, the Petitioner sought classification below only as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, and did not assert eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability prior to adjudication. As the Director did not address whether she established EB-2 classification eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability, we did not consider the Petitioner's assertions as to exceptional ability raised before us for the first time on appeal, and will not consider them here.Evidence submitted too late See Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260, 261 n.l (BIA 2007) (noting that matters not raised previously are waived on appeal).
In our previous decision, we also affirmed our prior determination that the Petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate that her proposed endeavor in the United States will likely have national importance. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We determined that the evidence submitted on motion, including publications from sources such as Trading Economics, CASTUS Global, Euronews, White & Case, Global Expansion, and the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, provided only generalized information regarding legal services and business. We further determined that the Petitioner's submission of publications from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Brazilian Bar Association, and information regarding Brazilian academics from the American Association ofCollegiate Registrars and Admissions provided only generalized information 1 Because we determined in our most recent decision that the Petitioner had not satisfied the first prong of the framework outlined in Matter ofDhanasar. 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), and thus had not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver, we declined to reach and reserved the Petitioner's assertions concerning her eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification. INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516. 526 n. 7 (BIA 2015) ( declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). p. 3 regarding the Brazilian market and the legal profession. Upon review of all the submitted evidence, we concluded that none ofthe documentation submitted addressed the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposed to undertake or how the endeavor may have national or even global implications within a particular field. See id. at 889-90.
On motion, the Petitioner submits numerous articles and publications in support of the national importance of her proposed endeavor. For example, the record includes a copy of the Brazil Country Commercial Guide published by the International Trade Administration, articles pertaining to Brazilian investment abroad and foreign investment in Latin America, and articles regarding the benefits of entrepreneurship and the contributions of foreign legal consultants. In addition to this new evidence, the Petitioner again highlights previously submitted evidence and asserts that she has demonstrated that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest.
The Petitioner, who has worked as a lawyer in Brazil, intends to work as the managing partner of her consulting firm where she will advise U.S. companies seeking to enter the Brazilian market on the legal requirements, financial planning, and cross-border business expansion. Despite the submission of additional documentary evidence on motion, the record does not support the Petitioner's claim that her proposed endeavor will have broader implications for the consulting services industry, U.S. economy, and international trade.No broader implications shown As previously noted, the Petitioner's business plan was not supported by independent evidence that corroborated her staffing projections or financial projections, and the record does not contain specific, probative evidence that her proposed endeavor will have broader implications in her field, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or have other substantial positive economic effects.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
We recognize the importance of the legal industry and related careers as well as the positive effects foreign investment can have for U.S. businesses. However, merely working in the legal field or starting a legal consulting services business focusing on cross-border transactions is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor. Instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See id. at 889. Although the articles and reports submitted on motion discuss the economic benefits of legal services, entrepreneurship, and the value of foreign investments and transactions, they do not discuss any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation specifically attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. The Petitioner does not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor extends beyond her future clients or employers to impact the field or any other industries or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance. The Petitioner's submissions on motion to reopen, therefore, have not demonstrated that her proposed endeavor will likely reach the level of national importance.
For the reasons outlined above, 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.
B. Motion to Reconsider
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 p. 4 at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit.
We dismissed the Petitioner's previous motion to reconsider on the basis that it did not provide reasons for reconsideration that were supported by citations to appropriate statutes, regulations, or precedent decisions, and it did not show that our decision dismissing the appeal was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the decision.
Regarding her eligibility for classification as an advanced degree professional, the Petitioner claims that we erred in not providing a thorough analysis of the employer and colleague letters submitted in support of the assertion that she possesses the requisite five years of post-baccalaureate experience. As noted previously, we reserved this issue in our prior decision because the Petitioner had not satisfied the first prong of the Dhanasar framework and thus had not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver. However, our appellate decision thoroughly analyzed the contents of each letter, articulating deficiencies and noting unresolved discrepancies in the Petitioner's claimed employment history. On motion, the Petitioner does not claim that our previous decision dismissing the motion to reconsider was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that it was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of our decision. Her statement in support ofthe motion does not point to any factual, legal or policy error in our prior decision.
Additionally, while the Petitioner continues to assert that her proposed endeavor has national importance, she does not specifically identify an instance in which we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in arriving at our latest decision.Proposed endeavor too vague On motion, she continues to primarily rely on the importance of both the legal industry and foreign investment and their collective impact on the U.S. economy; 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 her specific endeavor. And again, in our dismissal of her first motion to reconsider, we acknowledged these claims, but explained that because the Petitioner had not addressed our prior determinations regarding these claims and essentially submitted the same brief she submitted on appeal, she did not show that we erred in dismissing her appeal. We also observed that the record did not contain sufficient support for the hiring and financial projections set forth in her business plan or otherwise demonstrate a significant potential to employ workers, and further noted that the Petitioner's generalized assertions indicated that the endeavor would be similar to other legal services consulting businesses.
In the current motion, the Petitioner reiterates the same claims regarding her proposed endeavor and its economic benefits without addressing our determination that the record did not demonstrate that her proposed endeavor may have broader implications for the consulting services industry, U.S. economy, and international trade beyond her business and potential clientele as contemplated by the first Dhanasarprong. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. 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 of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party p. 5 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 shown that we erred as a matter of law or policy. Consequently, we have no basis for reconsideration of our decision, and the motion to reconsider will be dismissed.
In conclusion, although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of her motion to reopen, she has not established new facts relevant to our previous decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings. Additionally, on motion to reconsider, she has not demonstrated that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that our previous decision was incorrect based on evidence in the record at the time we issued the decision. Because the combined motions do not overcome the issues of whether the Petitioner merits classification as an advanced degree professional under section 203(b )(2) of the Act or whether the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong, we again reserve the issues of whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs because they would be unnecessary to the ultimate decision. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (stating that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.