The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and 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. § l 153(b)(2).
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, concluding that the Petitioner established his underlying eligibility for EB-2 classification, but that the record did not establish he merited a national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent appeal after concluding the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as is required to establish he merits a national interest waiver. 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 of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&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). 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 ofCoelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). In support of his Form 1-140, the Petitioner submitted, in part, a personal statement and a business plan, as well as other documents that are listed in the Director's decision, which we incorporate here by reference. The Director determined the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor was nationally important; that he was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and that on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States, as required by the Dhanasar analytical framework. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). With regard to national importance, the Director specifically concluded that the Petitioner had not p. 2 established that the potential prospective impact of his proposed endeavor stood to sufficiently extend beyond the individuals he would serve and thus impact the information technology industry or field more broadly. On appeal, we determined that the Petitioner's evidence reflected his own experience and was insufficient to show how his proposed endeavor to operate a business training and consulting business would broadly impact business at a level commensurate with national importance, or have substantial positive economic effects or significant potential to employ U.S. workers.Job creation or economic claims unsupported See Dhanasar, 26 T&N Dec. at 890.
On motion, the Petitioner resubmits a legal brief from his previous appeal as well as copies ofevidence previously submitted in support of his Form T-140, including his personal statement, business plan, and other documents listed in the Director's decision. 1 The Petitioner, however, has not stated any new facts as is required for a motion to reopen. Thus, he has not established that his motion to reopen should be granted as he has not satisfied the filing requirements for such a motion.
The Petitioner also contests the correctness ofthe Director's decision. He generally claims, regarding the national importance of his proposed endeavor, that the Director did not give enough weight to the significant advantages ofhis work to the national interest.Proposed endeavor too vague He further claims that his work is in an area of great intrinsic worth and would make a great contribution to the training and consulting industry which impacts business and social welfare interests across the nation. Finally, he asserts that the Director did not accurately consider evidence regarding the projected impact ofhis endeavor on social wellbeing, the community, and to job creation.
Initially, we note that a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior appellate 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. § I 03.5(a)(3). Thus, while the Petitioner claims the Director's decision was erroneous in law and fact, he does not identify specifically how we erred in our decision on appeal.
Additionally, to the extent the Petitioner reiterates his claims that evidence showing the benefits and intrinsic worth of his work were not given sufficient weight, our review of the record reflects that we fully reviewed, considered, and explained the deficiencies in the Petitioner's evidence, including the evidence he resubmits on motion, in finding that he did not establish his endeavor has the potential to impact businesses or create jobs in the United States at a level demonstrating its national importance. Furthermore, with regard to the intrinsic worth of his work in the training and consulting industry, as we addressed in our previous decision, the relevant question is not the importance ofthe field, industry, or profession in which a petitioner may work; instead, we focus on "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake," and the Petitioner has not established that we incorrectly applied this law in our prior decision. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec at 889. Accordingly, 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 of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). He therefore has not demonstrated his motion to reconsider should be granted.
The Petitioner has not established that reopening and reconsideration is warranted. The combined motions 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.