The Petitioner, a restaurant manager, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree and as 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for EB-2 classification or for the national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. 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 motion.
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 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief in support of the combined motion and a copy of our prior decision. However, the Petitioner does not submit any new evidence and does not assert any new facts supported by documentary evidence that establish eligibility, as required on motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (4). As such, his submission does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen, and his motion must be dismissed.
On motion to reconsider, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision. However, the brief in support of the motion to reconsider does not identify any error of law or policy in our prior p. 2 decision. The Petitioner's contentions in the current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decision. 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"). He did not explain why our conclusion that the Director correctly determined he did not establish eligibility for EB-2 classification was erroneous at the time it was rendered. Since the brief the Petitioner submitted does not meet the above requirements for a motion to reconsider, the motion must be dismissed.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.