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 the Petitioner's appeal and subsequent motions. The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen.
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 affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 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 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome).
In dismissing the Petitioner's previous combined motion to reopen and reconsider, we explained that she did not satisfy the requirements under Matter ofLozada, 19 l&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), nor did she demonstrate that the untimeliness of her previous motion to reopen was both reasonable and beyond her control. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). We further explained that any such grounds would not apply to our decision to dismiss her prior motion to reconsider as untimely. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(7)(i), (ii). Finally, we explained why the Petitioner did not satisfy the requirements of a motion to reconsider because she did not identify a law or policy that we misapplied, stating only that our decision was "incorrectly issued."
On motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits documentation related to her business and her interactions with her previous counsel. She includes a brief in which she reasserts earlier claims concerning her p. 2 filing history and her counsel, and she discusses her experience with her business. She does not, however, state new facts supported by documentary evidence to address our prior decision to dismiss her motion. The Petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the motion to reopen will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). ORDER: The motion to reopen 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.