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 EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that she 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 the Petitioner's appeal and four subsequent motions. The matter is now before us on fifth motion to reopen.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe 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). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (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).
In our decision dismissing the Petitioner's fourth motion, we acknowledged the articles submitted but concluded that they did not focus on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor and that she did not offer new evidence or facts to overcome our previous decision.
On current motion, the Petitioner contends our conclusion was "questionable" because she asserts her prior motion mentioned "what the proposed endeavor will do specifically, in line with the demand and importance of the broader field" and "explained how her specific proposed endeavor is poised to achieving these national interests." The Petitioner again provides information about her proposed endeavor and an explanation as to why it is of national importance. In addition, she submits p. 2 government and policy reports, academic research and market analysis, media coverage, and a printout of the May 2023 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics for Educational Instruction and Library Occupations. She concludes that as her proposed endeavor "directly aligns with national educational and workforce development priorities," we should grant the motion to reopen and approve her petition.
As previously noted, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen. Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.