The Petitioner, a training and development specialist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest waiver ofthe 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 that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor certification, would be in the national interest. We dismissed a subsequent appeal, agreeing with SCOPS' conclusion regarding the national importance of the proposed endeavor and reserving the remaining issues under the Dhanasar analytical framework. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider for the fourth time.
The Petitioner bears the burden ofproof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance ofthe evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion.
Motion to Reopen
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 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).
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that the evidence he has submitted with his motion brief comprises new facts that establish his eligibility for a national interest waiver. He specifically lists several documents he describes as "updated and additional documentation that was not part of the prior record," including a business plan, a statement describing his endeavor, and several reference, experience, and expert opinion letters. Our review of these documents reveals the Petitioner's p. 2 assertion to be inaccurate, as all of these documents were previously submitted and considered in our previous decisions, such that none of them state new facts . The other documents accompanying the brief have also been previously submitted.
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). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen. Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision.
Motion to Reconsider
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, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our prior decision, stating that "the legal standard under Matter ofDhanasar was not fully applied." But our most recent decision did not apply the analytical framework under Dhanasar to the record. Rather, it explained why the Petitioner's previous motion did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. As noted above, 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 merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions. See, e.g. , Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 l&N 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.
Conclusion
The Petitioner has not submitted new facts in support of his motion to reopen, and thus has not met the requirements for a motion to reopen or 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.
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 p. 3 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.