Education Specialist

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the regulatory requirements. For the motion to reopen, no new facts supported by documentary evidence were presented that were material to the issues raised on motion and not previously submitted. For the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of that decision.

The motion to reopen was dismissed due to the Petitioner's failure to present new relevant facts supported by documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner reiterated identical arguments from the previous appeal without demonstrating that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. The previous appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor (Dhanasar Prong 1).

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The AAO found that the petitioner's arguments regarding the sufficiency of affidavits as secondary evidence, their ability to resolve discrepancies, and the materiality of discrepancies were already addressed and rejected in prior motions. The decision emphasized the requirement for independent, objective evidence to resolve inconsistencies, citing Matter of Ho, and stated that a motion to reconsider is not a process to resubmit the same arguments.

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner did not directly address the conclusions of the immediate prior decision or provide reasons for reconsidering those conclusions, instead rearguing facts and issues already considered.