The Petitioner, an electrical technician and consultant, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, 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. § ll 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but 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 a subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 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). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion.
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). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit.
In our prior decision, which we hereby incorporate by reference, we adopted and affirmed the Director's analysis and the portion of decision finding that the Petitioner did not establish her proposed endeavor has national importance. We therefore concluded that she did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, and we declined to reach and reserved our opinion on the Director's other findings related to EB-2 immigrant classification and the remaining national waiver interest prongs in Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We discussed the Director's decision as it relates to national importance. Specifically, we mentioned that the Director acknowledged the Petitioner's business plan and highlighted the lack of objective evidence of staffing projections and proposed figures. We mentioned that the Director found that the Petitioner did not establish the proposed endeavor would result in substantial U.S. economic impact or job creation or that it would broadly enhance societal welfare; and that the Director acknowledged documents related to the p. 2 Petitioner's field but noted the focus for determining national importance is on the Petitioner's specific endeavor. We stated that the Petitioner generally reiterated the benefits of her profession, her qualifications, and the claimed economic impacts of her proposed business; and she did not provide any new evidence, overcome the Director's determination, or identify any specific instances where the Director erred.Job creation or economic claims unsupported
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief, a copy of our prior decision, and previously submitted documents. The Petitioner makes the same and similar arguments as previously made regarding the national importance of her proposed endeavor. The Petitioner has not established 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 ofthe decision. Therefore, the Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 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). 1
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.