The Petitioner 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).
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. We dismissed a subsequent appeal and two motions to reconsider. The matter is now before us on a third motion to 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 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.
On motion, as with her previous motions, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision, insisting that our analysis of the evidence was arbitrary and inconsistent with applicable regulations and precedent decisions. The Petitioner revisits her earlier arguments and points to evidence in the record which we previously analyzed and discussed in our dismissals of her appeal and motions. Although the Petitioner reasserts her eligibility, she does not identify any erroneous application oflaw or policy to demonstrate that our decision was incorrect at the time it was issued. The Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).
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). The Petitioner's contentions in her current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions. See, e.g., Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 l&N p. 2 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 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.