The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement that is attached to this EB-2 immigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that eligibility for a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, as well as two subsequent motions to reconsider. The matter is now before us again on the third motion to reconsider.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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.
In our prior decision, we acknowledged the Petitioner's arguments but were not persuaded that her motion met the requirements for a motion to reconsider. We pointed out that contrary to the Petitioner's claims, she did not provide any precedent decisions to support her claims in her first motion. In addition, we explained that we previously considered and analyzed the Petitioner's evidence finding it was insufficient to demonstrate eligibility for the required benefit. Without evidence that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, we concluded the Petitioner did not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider.
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. The Petitioner asserts the prior motion decision "failed to provide due consideration and denied [the Petitioner] a fair p. 2 adjudication." She claims her prior motion "was properly filed and met the applicable legal standards," having "articulated specific errors of law and fact in the adjudication" which were "supported by citations to applicable law or precedent decisions."
We do not agree with the Petitioner's assertions. Contrary to her claims, her prior motion does not specify legal or factual errors supported by citations or precedent decisions, nor does it demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. Our prior motion decision considered the Petitioner's claims, including claims of her proposed endeavor's national importance, appropriately concluding she did not specify reasons why the preceding decision was based on incorrect application of law or policy to overcome the basis of the decision.
The remainder of the Petitioner's current motion brief reiterates factual and legal claims argued in her appeal brief. The Petitioner contends that she is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as an individual of exceptional ability. However, the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification is not in dispute. We concluded in our appeal decision that the Petitioner met eligibility for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional.
In addition, the Petitioner reargues claims in her appeal brief relating to the three Dhanasar prongs, namely that her proposed endeavor is of national importance, she is well-positioned to advance her proposed endeavor, and that waiving the job offer requirement would be in the national interest. We previously considered the Petitioner's claims and will not re-adjudicate the petition anew. As stated in our prior decision, "[ d]isagreeing with our conclusions does not establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).
The Petitioner's contentions in the 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"). 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. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied and 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 I-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.