The Petitioner, a special needs specialist, 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. § 1153(b)(2).
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal and motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us on a second motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof 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 to reconsider.
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider. By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i).
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and contends we "conducted an arbitrary assessment of the evidence, overlooking relevant evidence" and disagrees with our statements regarding national importance of her proposed endeavor in the previous motion to reopen. The Petitioner submits a motion brief that quotes from her personal statement and opinion letters already in the record. The deficiencies in the already submitted evidence have been identified and discussed in our prior decisions.
The current motion brief states that our prior decision lacked thorough analysis; however, the Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. Regarding the motion to reconsider, we stress again that to establish merit for reconsideration of our latest decision, a petitioner must both state the reasons why it believes the most recent decision was based on an incorrect p. 2 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 ofO-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). Accordingly, although we acknowledge that the Petitioner submits a brief, we determine that the Petitioner does not directly address the conclusions we reached in our immediate prior decision or provide reasons for reconsidering of those conclusions. Likewise, the brief in support of the current motion also lacks any cogent argument as to how we misapplied the law or USCIS policy in dismissing the appeal. We thoroughly analyzed the Petitioner's evidence and arguments and provided a complete decision reaching the correct conclusion.
In this matter, the Petitioner has not overcome our prior decision or shown proper cause to reconsider this matter. 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.