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. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that he qualified for the underlying EB-2 classification, among other conclusions. We dismissed a subsequent appeal for the same reason. We also dismissed two successive motions for untimeliness. The matter is now before us is a third motion, combined motions to reopen and reconsider.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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.
On motion, the Petitioner submits a personal statement arguing his eligibility for the national interest waiver according to the framework laid out in our precedent decision Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). 1 He also submits copies of previously-submitted evidence.
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome).
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 prior motion. Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing his previous motion as untimely.
Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision.
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.
The latest decision, which the Petitioner contests with these motions, was dismissal of his second untimely motion. The Petitioner does not address this decision in the instant motion, rather, he resubmits what appears to be an identical statement contesting our appeal dismissal that he submitted in support of his previous untimely motion. As the Petitioner has not submitted evidence demonstrating that our decision to dismiss his previous untimely motion was incorrect, he 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 to reconsider will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.