The Petitioner, an aeronautical engineer, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but did not establish 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 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 must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined the Petitioner did not meet the first prong of the analytical framework in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), to adjudicate national interest waiver petitions. We concluded the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor. See id. at 889 (providing in relevant part that, to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, the petitioner must establish that their specific proposed endeavor has national importance).
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner does not assert any new facts and does not submit any evidence. His submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. On motion to reconsider, the p. 2 Petitioner asserts our prior decision was deficient because it did not evaluate all the arguments presented on appeal, but the Petitioner does not specify which arguments he claims were not addressed. The Petitioner also claims we erred in our evaluation of the Petitioner's contributions and potential impact on the United States aviation sector because the evidence "clearly shows the critical importance and nationwide benefits of the Petitioner's work." The Petitioner does not identify what evidence he claims was improperly evaluated. The Petitioner also does not cite any error in our application of Dhanasar or specify any other legal error or misapplication of policy in our prior decision. In our prior decision, we addressed the relevant evidence and determined it did not demonstrate any broader implications ofthe Petitioner's proposed endeavor in his field at a level ofnational importance.Proposed endeavor too vague See id. (stating that national importance is evaluated through consideration of "potential prospective impact" and "broader implications"). We acknowledged the evidence of the Petitioner's employer's economic impact in Florida, but explained the Petitioner did not establish his specific proposed endeavor's potential to employ U.S. workers or have a substantial positive economic effect.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See id. at 890 ("An endeavor that has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an economically depressed area, ... may well be understood to have national importance."). On motion, the Petitioner does not identify any misapplication oflaw or policy in these determinations.
The Petitioner's submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 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, the 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.