The Petitioner, an assistant professor, seeks second preference 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 EB-2 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 had not established that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. We agreed with the Director and dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. He has filed a motion to reopen and reconsider our decision. With the motion, the Petitioner submits additional documentation and a brief asserting that he is eligible for a national interest waiver.
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reopen and reconsider.
Law
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). In addition, a motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record ofproceedings at the time ofthe initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit.
Analysis
In our March 2021 decision, we concluded that the Petitioner had not sufficiently identified or provided consistent information and evidence regarding his proposed endeavor, and thus had not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver under the first prong of the analytical framework p. 2 set forth in the precedent decision Matter o fDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). that the documentation submitted in support o f the petition related to the Petitioner's past research rather than his future plans to conduct geology and environmental sciences research aimed at climate change and global warming. We further noted that while the Petitioner identified a wide variety of possible research topics in areas such as geology, environmental sciences, oil and gas, oceanography, micropaleontology, and stratigraphy, the record did not include sufficient information or supporting documentation to corroborate in which of these varying proposed research areas he will work on in the United States, nor had he identified research projects he intends to undertake in this country to mitigate global warming or climate change. Additionally, we determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that his prospective teaching work stands to have broader implications rising to the level of having national importance, as he had not shown how the effects of his instructional activities would extend beyondthestudentshetaught.No broader implications shown BecausethePetitionerhadnotestablishedthathisprospectiveworkasa geology and environmental sciences researcher or teacher stands to have broader implications rising to the level ofhaving national importance, we concluded that he had not satisfied the "national importance" requirement ofDhanasar's first prong.
A. Motion to Reopen
The Petitioner presents new evidence on motion relating to his claim that he is eligible for a national interest waiver. Specifically, he submits a November 2020 letter from the Geological Society of America (GSA) inviting him to serve on the GSA International Committee as a member-at-large for a period of four years. The GSA letter states that the "function of this committee is to serve as GSA' s coordination and communication resource seeking to promote, create, and enhance opportunities for international cooperation related to the scientific, educational, and outreach missions shared by GSA and like-minded professional societies, educational institutions, and government agencies," but it does not identify the research or teaching projects that the Petitioner plans to undertake.
In addition, the Petitioner provides emails froml IUniversity relating to teaching opportunities in 2020 and 2021. He also submits an August 2021 letter stating that he is currently working as an assistant professor in the Department o f Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences atl I i===]Universityl ~ Furthermore, the Petitioner presents a July 2021 job offer letter from L___Jindicating that he would be teaching classes on "Weather and Climate" and "Global Environmental Problems." This evidence, however, does not show that the benefits ofhis instructional activities have broader implications for his field, as opposed to being limited to the students at the The motion also includes the Petitioner's u dated curriculum vitae, a a er he coauthored examining the impact o,__________________________________,, citation information relating to his scholarly work, and documentation indicating that he gave a career path Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 classification, USCTS may, as matter of discretion,grantanationalinterestwaiverifthepetitionerdemonstrates: (1)thattheforeignnational'sproposedendeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus ofa labor certification.Benefits limited to an employer or its clients See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three prongs.
In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. university where he intends to teach.
We explained p. 3 presentation (October 2020) which offered guidance on conference participation to "fledgling 3 geoscientists." he plans to undertake or shown that his proposed work supports a finding of national importance. In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance ofthe field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. The evidence presented on motion does not establish that the Petitioner's prospective work as a geology and environmental sciences researcher, teacher, or assistant professor stands to have broader implications rising to the level of having national importance. Accordingly, while the Petitioner has offered new evidence, this documentation does not demonstrate new facts showing that he meets the "national importance" requirement ofDhanasar'sfirst prong, and therefore he has not overcome our prior determination.
B. Motion to Reconsider
The Petitioner contends on motion that our appellate decision "applied a legally incorrect standard concerning the national interest waiver's 'national importance' criterion by focusing only on [the Petitioner's] job title rather than his ongoing, continuing, and university-supported impactful research." He argues that we erred with respect to "the national interest waiver's 'no job offer' requirement" and "gutted the main purpose of the NIW case." The Petitioner further asserts that our decision "establishes a de facto job requirement which is legally incorrect." He also states that eligibility for a national interest waiver "is based on expertise, and consistent impact, not the Our decision, however, did not indicate or imply that a job offer was required under the Dhanasar analytical framework. current and prospective positions to illustrate the capacity in which he intends to work in order to determine whether his proposed endeavor meets the requirements of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework. In determining national importance, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake." Id. at 889. While the Petitioner identified a wide variety of possible research topics, he did not offer sufficient information or supporting documentation to corroborate in which of these varying proposed research areas he will work on in the United States, nor had he identified the specific research projects he intends to undertake in our country to mitigate global warming or climate change.
Regarding his eligibility under prong two of Dhanasar, the Petitioner asserts that he has a stronger citation record and is affiliated with "more prestigious" universities than Dr. Dhanasar, the petitioner inourDhanasarprecedentdecision. WhilewementionedDr.Dhanasar'suniversityand"publications The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong ofthe Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national." Id. at 890. The issue here is whether the specific endeavor that he proposes to undertake has national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. We consider a petitioner's expertise, research funding, and impact on the field among other factors under Dhanasar's second prong in determining whether an individual is well positioned to advance their proposed endeavor. Id. at 890.
We specifically stated: "As the Petitioner is applying for a waiver of the job offer requirement, it is not necessary for him to have a job offer from a specific employer."
The Petitioner, however, has not sufficiently documented the future research projects availability of fonding" or where an individual will be working.
As noted in our decision, we considered information about the Petitioner's p. 4 and other published materials that cite his work" as part of our discussion of his evidence, our determination that Dr. Dhanasar was well positioned under the second prong was not based on his university affiliation or citation record.Citation record not persuasive Rather, in our precedent decision we found "[t]he petitioner's education, experience, and expertise in his field, the significance of his role in research projects, as well as the sustained interest of and funding from government entities such as NASA and AFRL, position him well to continue to advance his proposed endeavor of hypersonic technology research." Id. at 893. Nonetheless, in the present matter, our appellate decision did not render a determination The Petitioner's arguments do not establish that we erred in concluding that he had not satisfied the "national importance" requirement ofDhanasar's first prong. The Petitioner therefore has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider as he has not shown that we erred in our previous decision based on the record before us on appeal. In addition, the motion to reconsider does not establish that our dismissal ofhis appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw, regulation, or USCIS policy.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not shown that we erred as a matter oflaw or USCIS policy in dismissing his appeal, nor has he established new facts relevant to our decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings. Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our appellate decision. The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. relating to the Petitioner's eligibility under prong two of the Dhanasar framework.
We determined that because the Petitioner had not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, he had not demonstrated his eligibility for a national interest waiver. Accordingly, we noted that further analysis of his eligibility under the second and third prongs outlined in Dhanasar would serve no meaningful purpose.