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).
The Director of the Texas Service Center 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 the subsequent appeal agreeing with the Director that the record did not demonstrate his eligibility for the requested 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.
In dismissing the appeal, we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner had not sufficiently explained his proposed endeavor and that the Petitioner's inclusion of establishing a consulting company in his response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE) constituted a material change in his proposed endeavor. 1 We noted the Petitioner had not adequately established how his proposed endeavor "to practice the occupation of [computer science (CS)]" would have a broader impact on the field, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or other substantial positive economic effects, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. We concluded the Petitioner met the substantial merit element of the first prong of the Dhanasar analysis but did not demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of the endeavor rises to the level of national importance. We addressed the Petitioner's position as a professor, his research plans, letters of recommendation, and his past accomplishments.
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 o_f Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome).
The Petitioner contends his "case has been incorrectly decided" and asserts he provided "adequately clear and detailed" information regarding his proposed endeavor to establish national importance. The Petitioner proceeds to provide the same information he provided in the initial filing and in response to the Director's RFE. Although the Petitioner provided a copy of a research proposal he had previously written to apply for employment and the accompanying email, the evidence does not establish national importance as he has not sufficiently demonstrated how, for example, his proposed endeavor will have a broader impact 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.No broader implications shown Matter o_f Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016).
The Petitioner also contests the correctness of our prior decision. The Petitioner asserts he provided "adequate details" ofhis proposed endeavor to establish national importance. He also states that "[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] continues to insist that the details, which I provided, are simply details on what my occupation normally involves, rather than these details being on the types of work that I propose to undertake specifically within my occupation" However, he does not specifically identify an instance in which we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in arriving at our decision. Thus, the Petitioner has not established that we erred as a matter of law or policy in our prior decision or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings at the time. Accordingly, he has not satisfied the requirements for a motion to reconsider. Although the Petitioner has submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, the Petitioner has not established eligibility. 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 reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.