The Petitioner, a political scientist, 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 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that he had not established 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 matter is now before us 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 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions.
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 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome).
The record shows that Petitioner's proposed endeavor is to offer consulting services as a policy analyst and researcher. The Petitioner also seeks to form a company where he will provide translation and immigration and citizenship consultancy services related to the Central Asian region. In our decision dismissing the appeal, we explained why we will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of operating a translation and immigration consulting business. We further noted why the Petitioner failed to demonstrate his initial proposed endeavor's national importance. In support of his motion to reopen and motion reconsider, the Petitioner submits a brief and asserts that our decision was "based on an incorrect application oflaw." On motion to reopen, the Petitioner does not present any new facts and does not submit any new evidence. The Petitioner rather reiterates his previous submissions, adds details about his proposed endeavor, and explains why he believes his p. 2 endeavor is nationally important. Although we acknowledge the Petitioner's brief, the Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings.
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). 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.
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner does not explain how we erroneously dismissed his appeal. The Petitioner only discusses his proposed endeavor without addressing the specific determinations in our last decision. The Petitioner also does not explain how our appellate decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision.
Although the Petitioner has submitted a brief in support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our appellate 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. Therefore, we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.