Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office Date: MAR. 25 2022
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National Interest Waiver) The Petitioner, a youth minister, seeks second preference 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 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the nationalinterest. Wedismissedasubsequentappeal,concludingthatthePetitionerhadnotestablished that the proposed endeavor has national importance, reserving other eligibility criteria issues. The matter is before us again on a combined motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider.
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the combined motion.
Law
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(2). We do not require the evidence ofa "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or undiscoverable. Instead, "new facts" are facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original application. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(3). We do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider.
Analysis
As noted above, although we found that the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, we found that the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first prong of Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 1 On combined motion, the Petitioner asse1is that her "activities will be of national importance and will undoubtedly reach all parts of the United States." We address the combined motion separately below.
A. Motion to Reopen
New evidence in support of the motion to reopen includes the following: (1) a one-page letter from the senior pastor of the IChurch of Christ; (2) a one-page letter from the senior pastor of _ _ _ _ _ _ (3) a one-page letter from the coordinator of and (4) a personal statement from the Petitioner dated October 2021.
None of the new evidence presents new facts that are relevant to the issues raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding. The letters from the respective organizations largely consist oflanguage that is identical to language in letters already in the record, including letters submitted in supportof the appeal. Because the letters reassert, verbatim, information already in the record, they do not present new facts. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(2). Moreover, the letters and the Petitioner's new personal statement address the Petitioner's recent activities, occurring after the petitionfilingdatein2018. Apetitionermustestablisheligibilityatthetimeoffilingavisapetition. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). A visapetitionmaynotbe approvedatafuturedateafterapetitionerbecomes eligible under a new set of facts. See Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Comm'r 1971). Therefore, even if the letters presented new facts, to the extent that they address the Petitioner's activitiesafterthepetitionfilingdate,theycouldnotestablisheligibility. See8C.F.R.§103.2(b)(1); see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49.
Because the evidence submitted in support of the motion to reopen does not present new facts that establish eligibility at the time of filing, we will dismiss the motion to reopen.Not eligible at the time of filing See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (a)(4); see also 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(6)(1); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49.
B. Motion to Reconsider
Turning to the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner does not identify a law or policy that we may have incorrectly applied in the underlying motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Instead, the Petitioner discusses only her endeavor and the letters addressed above.
The Petitioner has not established on motion that we misapplied a law or policy and that our decision was incorrectbased onthe evidence in therecordofproceedings atthe time ofthe decision; therefore, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. Id.
Because the Petitioner has not satisfied the first Dhanasar prong on motion, we need not address whether she has satisfied the second and third Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S.
SccDhanasar, 26l&NDec. at 888-91, for elaboration onthe three prongs. p. 3 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter ofL-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516,526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible).
Conclusion
As the Petitioner has not met the requisite first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework, we conclude that the Petitioner has not established eligibility for, or otherwise merits, a national interest waiver as a matter of discretion.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.