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. § 1 l 53(b )(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not demonstrated her qualifications for the EB-2 category as a member of the professions holding an "advanced degree" or that she warranted a national interest waiver. In our decision to dismiss the appeal, we acknowledged that the Petitioner had established her qualifications for the EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional, but nonetheless dismissed the appeal because the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner met the first prong ofthe analytical framework described in the precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In a subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider, we determined that the Petitioner had not established that our decision to dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect application or law or policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings at the time of the decision.
The matter is again before us on motion to reconsider. 1 The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 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.
On motion, the Petitioner references the standard of proof for the EB-2 immigrant classification as preponderance of the evidence. Chawathe at 375-376. We agree. The Petitioner further contends that we did not consider the totality of the evidence regarding the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor according to the requirements in Dhanasar. She refers to her previously submitted personal statement, certifications, and specialized training, and reiterates arguments made below that the subject matter of her endeavor aligns with national health initiatives, and that her endeavor would have national reach because she would improve healthcare quality, enhance healthcare efficiency, transfer knowledge, contribute to the U.S. economy, and create jobs and economic growth. The Petitioner also maintains that we previously disregarded the opinions from the two experts who stated that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has national importance.
We stress again that to establish merit for reconsideration of our latest decision, a petitioner must both state the reasons why they believe the most recent decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; and it must also specifically cite laws, regulations, precedent decisions, and/or binding policies it believes we misapplied in our prior decision. 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 may submit in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision).
The Petitioner's statements with the instant motion regarding her eligibility for the EB-2 classification are insufficient to overcome the conclusions reached by this office based on the evidence submitted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has not articulated on motion how we erred in finding that the record did not demonstrate the proposed endeavor has national importance. We conclude that the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was incorrect. First, as we explained in the appeal dismissal, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that her specific endeavor would have national implications for the healthcare field or the economy.No broader implications shown As we previously detailed, the Petitioner's business plan projects that, within five years, her business would generate sales of $1,113,416, directly employ eight people, and indirectly create about 20 jobs. Even if these projections are realistic, however, the record does not establish that they are nationally significant or that the business would benefit an economically depressed area. Similarly, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that her work would lead to national advances in the healthcare field. Next, we find the Petitioner's assertion with the instant motion regarding our review of the expert opinion letters in the record unavailing. Rather than disregarding these documents, our decision to dismiss the appeal found that the letters did not support the claim of the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as they did not state that the Petitioner's specific venture- by itselfwould significantly affect the U.S. healthcare field or economy, as contemplated in Dhanasar. Id. at 893. While the Petitioner claims our decisions did not consider the totality of the evidence, she does not elaborate this claim or explain how an alternate analysis of the record would have established her eligibility. Overall, the Petitioner has not provided evidence in support ofher argument that we applied the Dhanasar framework incorrectly in her case.
To sum, on motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.