The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, 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. § 1l 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. 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 combined motion.
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence.
Dhanasar. Moreover, although we evaluated his assertions of the importance of the healthcare and housing industries in which the Petitioner's business ventures operate, we determined that he did not establish that his endeavor would result in broader implications beyond his businesses and prospective clients, concluding he did not establish the prospective impact of the endeavor would rise to the level ofnational importance as contemplated in Dhanasar.No broader implications shown See id. (explaining the determination ofnational importance "focuses on the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake"). On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits evidence previously submitted concerning his telehealth app and his housing construction and renovation business, and he reiterates arguments concerning the importance of the industries in which he intends to operate, as well as his qualifications to do so. 1 The Petitioner asserts that his digital marketing solutions have "strong potential to revolutionize several industries," but he does not provide new information to support that claim, such as probative evidence of the impact of his telehealth app compared with other similar apps or digital marketing solutions. As to our determination that his business forecasts lacked corroborating evidence, the Petitioner contends that the projections in his business plan "are not mere guesses but are crafted from detailed research, industry standards, and analytical modeling intended to outline the endeavor's economic contributions and feasibility"; he does not, however, elaborate on any informational sources utilized. The Petitioner has not submitted new facts that that would warrant reopening of the proceedings and, therefore, has not met the requirements for a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision, asserting that we imposed a stricter standard of proof than that of preponderance of the evidence, 2 as well as novel and substantive evidentiary requirements. Referencing our evaluation of his business plan-which we determined lacked probative evidence to corroborate its claims-the Petitioner states the following: [T]he [ Dhanasar] criteria aim to gauge the potential future impact ofan endeavor rather than demand a quantitative threshold for national importance. The objective evidence [the Petitioner] has provided ... clearly supports his project's potential impact beyond his clients, to revolutionize the (tele)health and real estate sectors, which are both critical to the U.S. economy and societal welfare. The criteria are designed to ensure the petitioner presents a logically structured and viable plan, not to impose unattainable standards or numeric requirements to be projected by the company, because the company is a mere means to advance the proposed endeavor rather than the proposed endeavor itselfProposed endeavor too vague
In his brief, as well as in his business plan and in previous statements, the Petitioner generally asserts the importance of his endeavor based on its placement within industries that are, themselves, inherently important to the U.S. economy and societal welfare. The Petitioner, however, has not illustrated how his specific endeavor within these industries would have national importance. In addition to the absence of an explanation of how the Petitioner's specific endeavor is an undertaking of national importance, the record lacks probative evidence to support his claims. For example, 1 We note that a petitioner's qualifications to advance a proposed endeavor relate not to the first prong of the Dhanasar framework, which concerns the endeavor's national importance, but to the second.
concerning his intention to develop housing, the Petitioner included a March 2015 report from the National Association of Homebuilders that explored the one-year economic impact of building one hundred single-family houses "in a typical local area." Because the Petitioner repeatedly emphasizes in the record that his company has acquired a total of nine homes, it is not clear how his own potential economic impact in a given local area would compare to this much larger hypothetical development.Job creation or economic claims unsupported And regarding his claims of the influence of his digital marketing solutions on millions of people, the record does not include probative evidence demonstrating the usage or influence ofany digital product that he has developed. As the record did not include relevant and probative evidence relating to the Petitioner's specific endeavor, the Petitioner did not meet the standard of proof. Again, the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010).
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. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, the motion 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.