The Petitioner, an operations manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member ofthe 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 the Petitioner qualified for classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, but that be had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We rejected the Petitioner's appeal as untimely filed and dismissed a subsequent motion. Upon review, we determined the reject notice was issued in error. We reopened the matter on a Service motion under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(5) and dismissed the appeal, finding that the Petitioner had not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor. We dismissed the Petitioner's two subsequent combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us a third time on 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 motions.
We incorporate by reference our prior analysis of our decision on the appeal and in the subsequent motions. By way of summation, the record reflects that the Petitioner intends to expand and consolidate a consulting, advisory and solutions company for logistics management called! I LLC. In our prior decision on appeal, we concluded that although the Petitioner's proposed endeavor had substantial merit, be did not establish its national importance. The Petitioner claimed that immigrant entrepreneurship and small businesses are nationally important, but he did not provide sufficient evidence of the national importance of his particular endeavor. Furthermore, the submitted evidence did not sufficiently explain the basis for financial projections or growth in employees such that the proposed endeavor would have substantial economic benefits. We additionally determined that the record did not show that the Petitioner's endeavor would have a broader impact on the logistics management industry. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-90 (AAO 2016) (discussing factors to assess national importance).
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). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. Because the scope ofa 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).
With the present motion, the Petitioner submits recent bills of lading, rate confirmations, and formal contracts. The Petitioner again asserts that his proposed endeavor has national importance because it aligns with U.S. national policy directives. In our dismissal, we recognized the Petitioner's business plans and the role the proposed endeavor would have in the supply chain industry and determined that the Petitioner had not provided corroborating evidence or shown that the endeavor offered substantial economic benefits.Job creation or economic claims unsupported Although the bills oflading, rate confirmations, and formal contracts provide some corroborating evidence for the future endeavor and support the business plan, these documents do not demonstrate the broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that are indicative of national importance.No broader implications shown Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated the relevance ofthese numbers or provided supporting documentation to demonstrate how these operations generate substantial economic effects in the region where his company will operate. Consequently, the Petitioner's submission does not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen.
On the Petitioner's previous two combined motions, we determined that he did not specifically identify any erroneous application or law or policy in our prior decision on appeal. On his present motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts we disregarded evidence demonstrating the national importance of his proposed endeavor. However, the Petitioner cites evidence that was previously considered in our prior decisions such as his business plan and the articles on logistics services. The Petitioner's present motion does not identify any erroneous application of law or policy in our prior decision dismissing his prior motion to reconsider. Consequently, his submission does not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider. His contentions in the current motion repeat facts and issues we considered in our prior decisions. See e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board decision"). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains denied.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.
NOTICE: Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act through the issuance of a Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.