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. § l 153(b)(2).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that, although the Petitioner established eligibility for the EB-2 classification, the record did not establish that a waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal, agreeing that the record did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver and additionally withdrawing SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner established eligibility for the classification. We then dismissed a subsequent combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us on a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&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). 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).
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits an additional credential evaluation of the Petitioner's foreign degree and documentation from the university regarding the Petitioner's foreign degree program. The Petitioner asserts that these new facts establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the EB-2 classification, as they demonstrate that the Petitioner possesses the foreign equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). We agree.
We previously concluded that the record establishes that the Petitioner possesses at least five years of progressive experience in accounting following the completion of her Titulo de Contador Publico, p. 2 (title of public accountant) degree, awarded by~------------~in Colombia in 2013. However, in our appellate decision we withdrew SCOPS' finding that the Petitioner is eligible for the EB-2 classification because we concluded that the record did not establish that this foreign degree is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree.Degree not shown to be a U.S. advanced degree equivalent Specifically, we concluded that the degree transcripts appeared to show that the title of public accountant degree was only a two-year degree, and that the credential evaluations were not sufficiently detailed to establish how an apparent two-year degree program was equivalent to a four-year U.S. bachelor's degree. We therefore determined that she did not demonstrate that she possesses the foreign equivalent of U.S. bachelor's degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).Five years of progressive experience not documented
Based upon the new evidence submitted on motion to reopen, we conclude that the Petitioner has established that she possesses the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree. The new evidence shows that although the Petitioner's prior degree, issued from the same university, is a separate degree, it is also a required prerequisite as part of a single "preparatory cycle" for individuals to earn a title of public accounting degree from the university. The evidence sufficiently demonstrates that the Petitioner's title of public accountant degree requires, and that the Petitioner completed, at least 10 semesters of study at the post-secondary level, such that we conclude that the record establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the program constitutes a "single" degree that is equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree program. 1 As the new credential evaluation contends, this conclusion is supported by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) Electronic Database for Global Education (EDGE), 2 which indicates that a title of public accountant degree from Colombia represents attainment of a level of education comparable to a bachelor's degree in the United States. 3
We therefore withdraw our prior conclusion that the Petitioner does not possess the foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree and conclude that the Petitioner has established this requirement. Based upon the new evidence submitted on motion, the record therefore demonstrates that the Petitioner qualifies for the EB-2 classification based upon possessing the foreign equivalent to a U.S. bachelor's degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2).
However, we nevertheless conclude that the Petitioner has not stated new facts, supported by documentary evidence, that warrant reopening the proceedings. Although the Petitioner's motion to reopen establishes her eligibility for the EB-2 classification and has overcome the denial basis related to her eligibility for the classification, this is not sufficient to warrant reopening our latest decision. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. at 473 (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). The motion to reopen does not state new facts, supported by documentary evidence, 1 See 8 C.F.R. ~204.5(k)(2). requiring that an individual possess "a" U.S. bachelor's degree or "a" foreign equivalent degree.
related to her request for a national interest waiver. Because the Petitioner has not stated new facts that establish the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, we have no basis to reopen our latest decision. The motion to reopen will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).
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). 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.
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. In support of the motion, the Petitioner asserts that she has established her eligibility within the framework provided in Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). However, the Petitioner relies on claims previously presented to SCOPS in her petition and to us on appeal and on prior motion. The Petitioner's claims do not establish that our prior determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for a national interest waiver was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party seeks reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). Therefore, the motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).
The Petitioner has stated new facts, supported by documentary evidence, on motion to reopen establishing her eligibility for the EB-2 classification and overcoming one ofthe bases for our decision to dismiss the Petitioner's prior combined motion to reopen and reconsider. However, the Petitioner has not, on motion to reopen, stated new facts that establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. Additionally, the Petitioner has not, on motion to reconsider, established that our previous determination that the Petitioner is not eligible for a national interest waiver was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. The underlying petition remains denied.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.