The Petitioner, a computer scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification either as 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding 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 his appeal and subsequent combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now before us on second 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 l&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). Because the scope of a 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). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome).
In our prior decision, we acknowledged the Petitioner's assertion that his "case has been incorrectly decided" and his contention that the evidence he provided regarding his proposed endeavor was "adequately clear and detailed" enough to establish national importance. We noted that he provided the same information with his prior combined motions as he did with his initial filing, and in response to the SCOPS request for evidence (RFE). We again concluded that, although the Petitioner provided additional details regarding his research, the evidence did not establish national importance as he had not sufficiently demonstrated how, for example, his proposed endeavor would have a broader impact p. 2 on the field, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or otherwise offers substantial positive economic effects for our nation as contemplated by Dhanasar. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016). We further noted that the Petitioner made general allegation of error in our decision on his appeal, he did not specifically identify an instance in which we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in arriving at our decision. As a result, we dismissed his combined motions. In his second motion, the Petitioner submits a brief In his brief: he again seeks to refine the language of his proposed endeavor, stating that the "broad, sweeping implications of my multi-pronged endeavor range from the potential to support the national security ofthe USA or enhance this nation's economic competitiveness to the potential to impact, influence virtually all industries" ( emphasis removed).Proposed endeavor too vague Although the Petitioner speaks of his work in grand terms, the record does not support his claims. He asserts that our prior decisions did not acknowledge his intent to work in a science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) field, and implies that all STEM endeavors should be considered to be ofnational importance. With respect to the first prong, as in all cases, the evidence must demonstrate that a STEM endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance. 1 Many proposed endeavors that aim to advance STEM technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings, not only have substantial merit in relation to U.S. science and technology interests, but also have sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance. 2 On the other hand, while proposed classroom teaching activities in STEM, for example, may have substantial merit in relation to U.S. educational interests, such activities, by themselves, generally are not indicative of an impact in the field of STEM education more broadly, and therefore generally would not establish their national importance. 3 Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his endeavor aims to advance STEM technologies and research or has broad implications rather than providing his limited professional services by working within a STEM profession.
The Petitioner makes a general assertion that "the AAO simply ignored much of the evidence that [he] provided;" however, he also states that "it is inefficient (as well as unnecessary) to repeat and reintroduce the evidence." He does not provide any specific instance of our disregarding or ignoring the evidence that he provided. In fact, our decision on his prior combined motions specifically stated that all of the evidence had been reviewed and considered.
The Petitioner continues to confuse our statements regarding his proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact and argues that he has provided evidence to indicate that he has already achieved an impact in the field, which should be given more weight than any unrealized impact. As has been stated in prior decisions, any discussion ofthe Petitioner's prior work relates more to the second prong ofDhanasar, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. Finally, he refers again to evidence already contained in the record and considered in our prior decisions which he insists establishes the national importance of his proposed endeavor. The brief submitted with his combined motions does not constitute new facts; rather, the Petitioner is merely restating facts that have already been considered. Similarly, as our prior decision concluded, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law 1 See generally 5 USCIS Policy Manual D.2, https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual.
or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).
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 motion to reopen. Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior 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.