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).
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) 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 his appeal and two subsequent combined motions to reopen and to reconsider. The matter is now before us on a third combined motion to reopen and 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 combined motions.
We incorporate by reference the analysis in our prior decisions. By way of summation, and in relevant part, USCIS discussed the Petitioner's material change to his proposed endeavor description, determining that the record did not establish the endeavor would have the type ofbroader implications indicative of national importance, as contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889-90 (AAO 2016). In dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we agreed with USCIS' observation that the Petitioner materially changed his description of the proposed endeavor, he had not adequately described the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake, and that the record did not show the proposed endeavor would have the type of broader implications contemplated by the first Dhanasar prong. See id. We then dismissed the Petitioner's two subsequent combined motions because he did not state new facts supported by documentary evidence or establish that we incorrectly applied law or policy to the record at the time of the respective preceding decision. A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Because the scope of a motion is limited to the prior decision, we will review only the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § § 103 .5( a)( 1 )(i)-(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy p. 2 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). The Petitioner submits a statement with his third motion to reopen; however, he does not support his statement with documentary evidence. Because the Petitioner does not support his statement with documentary evidence, his motion does not satisfy the plain language requirements of a motion to reopen; therefore, we will dismiss it. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(2), (4).
In turn, 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).
The Petitioner claims we misapplied Matter ofPerez Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 829 (BIA 2005); Matter ofDhanasar, supra; a non-precedent AAO decision dated 2022; and the USCIS Policy Manual. The Petitioner characterizes Matter ofPerez Vargas as "an AAO precedent decision that shows an approved Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker whose proposed endeavor's description is perfectly similar to mine." The Petitioner's assertion is incorrect for several reasons. Matter ofPerez Vargas is a Board oflmmigration Appeals decision, not an AAO decision; it addresses an alien already found to be removable who was a beneficiary of an approved petition filed by his employer, not a selfpetitioning alien seeking a national interest waiver who had yet to be found removable or even in removal proceedings and whose Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, was denied; and the decision does not address the substance of that beneficiary's proposed endeavor description. See generally Matter ofPerez Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 829. Moreover, Matter ofPerez Vargas does not address national interest waivers-it does not contain the words "national" or "waiver" in any context, and it mentions the word "interest" only once in the context of a successor in interest to an original employer. Id. at 832. The Petitioner does not clarify how this case unrelated to national interest waivers is material to our analysis of the prior decision on his second combined motions; therefore, this does not present a relevant law or policy and establish that we misapplied it.
Next, the Petitioner quotes Dhanasar's acknowledgment that "the significance of the petitioner's research in his field is corroborated by evidence of peer and government interest in his research," and he claims we incorrectly applied this to his case. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 893. The language from Dhanasar the Petitioner quotes is from our analysis of whether that record showed the petitioner in that case was well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, which is the focus of the second Dhanasar prong. See Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. In this matter, USCIS denied the Form 1-140 under the first Dhanasar prong, which is dispositive, and USCIS specifically explained that further analysis of whether the record satisfies the second and third Dhanasar prongs would serve no meaningful purpose. Given that USCIS' and our decisions concluded the Petitioner did not satisfy the first Dhanasar prong, without addressing second-prong merits, Dhanasar's analysis of the second prong is immaterial to the bases for which we dismissed the appeal and the subsequent combined motions.
Next, the Petitioner references a non-precedent AAO decision dated 2022, in which we remanded a matter to USCIS to address information-and the lack thereof-in that record. This decision was not published as a precedent and, therefore, it does not bind USCIS officers in future p. 3 adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(c). Nevertheless, in that non-binding decision, we noted that USCIS must fully explain the reasons for denying a visa petition, citing 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) and Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994), which addressed when remanding a matter is necessary to allow an affected party a fair opportunity to contest an underlying unfavorable determination through an appeal. USCIS' requirement to explain in writing the specific reasons for an adverse decision is distinguishable from the issue of whether it must address each claim or item of evidence. We need not specifically address each claim a petitioner makes or each piece of evidence presented, as long as the decision explains in writing the specific reasons for dismissing an appeal or motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i); and see, e.g., Martinez v. INS, 970 F.2d 973, 976 (1st Cir. 1992). The Petitioner claims here that we neglected to apply USCIS policy in our dismissal of his second combined motions. However, the non-precedent decision dated 2022 is inapposite, given that the outcomes he sought in the prior combined motions were-and he seeks now are-for us to reopen or to reconsider the appeal, not for us to remand the matter to USCIS for it to allow him a fair opportunity to contest USCIS' underlying unfavorable determination through an appeal. Similarly, the Petitioner does not establish how we misapplied the underlying sources at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(i) and Matter ofM-P-, given that we explained the specific reasons for dismissing the prior combined motions in writing, and the Petitioner seeks reopening or reconsideration of the appeal, not remanding the matter. Next, the Petitioner rhetorically asks, "Is it not true that, according to USCIS's [sic] own policy, once a proposed endeavor 'aim[s] to advance [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)] technologies and research, whether in academic or industry settings,' the endeavor '[has] sufficiently broad potential implications to demonstrate national importance,"' quoting excerpted language from 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(4), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual.
We recognize the importance of progress in STEM fields and the essential role of persons with advanced STEM degrees in fostering this progress, especially in focused critical and emerging technologies or other STEM areas important to U.S. competitiveness or national security. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual, supra, at F.5(D)(4). However, as in all cases, a proposed endeavor implicating a STEM field must demonstrate not only substantial merit but also national importance, such as by having national or even global implications within a particular field, beyond merely being in a STEM field. See generally id.; see also Matter ofDhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889-90. Therefore, the Petitioner again does not establish a law or policy we misapplied.
In summation, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of a relevant law or policy at the time we issued our decision; therefore, the motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.5(a)(3)-(4).
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER 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 1-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.