The Petitioner, a restaurant manager and entrepreneur, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and/or an individual of exceptional ability as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. 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 did not establish that he qualifies for the EB-2 classification and is not eligible for a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement. We summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal because the Petitioner did not submit a brief or additional evidence specifying any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in our summary dismissal. We dismissed asubsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider because the Petitioner did not submit new evidence sufficient to overcome our summary dismissal and he did not establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. The matter is now before us on another combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance 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 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 of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). On motion, while the Petitioner submits a statement, it generally reiterates the benefits of his profession, his qualifications, and the claimed economic impact of his proposed business but it does not provide any new evidence or arguments which overcome the Director's determination. As noted p. 2 above, a motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence, that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts." Further, the Petitioner does not assert that our previous decisions were based on an incorrect application of law and/or policy. Upon review, we do not find any error or incorrect application of law or policy.
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate 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. Accordingly, the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.