The Petitioner, a business administrator, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, 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 qualified for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, but that she had not established that a waiver ofthe required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's 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 ofthe evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions.
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). 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.
In our decision dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner did not meet the first and second prongs of the analytical framework set forth in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016).
On motion, the Petitioner argues that our appellate decision did not properly evaluate the evidence, but she does not identify the specific documentation we erred in analyzing. She also contends that we misapplied legal standards without pointing to any examples of our erroneous conclusions of law or incorrect application of the Dhanasar framework. In addition, the Petitioner asserts that we did not p. 2 "give appropriate consideration to the evidence and arguments presented on appeal" or "provide a meaningful review of the petition," but she does specifically identify the arguments and evidence that were not properly considered in our appellate decision.
The Petitioner further claims that upholding the denial of her petition "would result in a manifest injustice" and "would go against the principles of fairness and equity." The Petitioner, however, has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for our appellate decision. Moreover, she has not demonstrated that our appellate decision was based on an incorrect application of law or users policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision.
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings, nor has she shown that we erred as a matter of law or users 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 her underlying petition remains denied.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.