Others

The document does not specify the petitioner's proposed endeavor, as the appeal and motions focused on the threshold eligibility for EB-2 classification rather than the merits of the work itself.

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. Specifically, the Petitioner did not contest the Director's determination regarding eligibility as an advanced degree professional, thus waiving that issue. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not claim eligibility for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability before the Director, and therefore, these claims could not be considered for the first time on appeal. The Petitioner did not provide support for the assertion that eligibility for exceptional ability was previously claimed.

The Administrative Appeals Office dismissed the motions to reopen and reconsider because the Petitioner failed to present new facts supported by evidence, did not elaborate on any change in circumstances, and did not demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner's appeal remains dismissed, and the underlying petition remains denied due to the failure to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver.

The petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree or an individual of exceptional ability, and a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.