dismissed EB-1A Case: Accounting

(b)(6)
Date: DEC 1 5 2014 Office: 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
APPLICATION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please revie w the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
�� 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on January 26, 2012. The petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which the 
director dismissed on December 4, 2012. The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen, which the 
director dismissed on September 20, 2013. On July 25, 2014, we dismissed the petitioner's appeal, 
finding that he did not establish his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. The matter is 
now before us on a motion to reconsider. We will dismiss the motion. 
I. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that our original decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the original decision based on the previous factual 
record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks a new hearing based on new or previously 
unavailable evidence. Compare 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(2). 
On motion, the petitioner contests our conclusions relating to criteria under the regulations at 
8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii), (v) and (viii). The petitioner has not shown that we should grant 
a motion to reconsider. 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes 
or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that his 2001 Diploma of Merit of Accounting is a nationally 
recognized award for excellence in the field. The petitioner made the same assertion on appeal. In 
our July 25, 2014 decision, we concluded that the petitioner did not submit sufficient relevant, 
probative and credible evidence showing that the award is · qualifying under the criterion. 
Specifically, we made the following findings: (1) the petitioner did not establish the source of the 
document he submitted to address the selection process of the award; (2) the etitioner's award 
certificate indicated that the awarding entity was the _ _ _ 
a regional authority; and (3) the award recognized "relevant and good professional 
services rendered to the accounting profession and society," not excellence in the field. The 
petitioner has not shown that we should grant a motion to reconsider as relating to this criterion. 
First, the petitioner acknowledges that a regional authority, the 
issued the award. He states that has "more accountants of 
[sic] Brazil (250,000) and it is responsible for the excellence of the profession in the country, having 
the best Universities and Colleges." The petitioner has provided no factual or legal bases to support 
his statement that the regional authority is responsible for the excellence of the profession in the 
country. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for the 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1972)). In addition, the May 20, 2013 obituary entitled "Die Sergio Machado Approbato," 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
which the petitioner submits on motion, does not establish that the petitioner's award, issued by a 
regional authority, enjoys national recognition.1 While the article mentions that Mr. 
received the ' ' it does not provide any information 
about the award at the regional or even federal level. Rather, the article indicates that the 
an award that the petitioner did not receive, is "the highest honor of the 
accounting profession." Finally, the record does not reveal the source of this obituary or establish 
that the source is an authority on Brazilian accounting awards. 
Third, the petitioner has not shown that the award recognizes excellence in the field. The petitioner 
asserts that his receipt of the award, which recognized "relevant and good professional services 
rendered to the accounting profession and society," indicated that the "accounting profession and 
society had attested the excellent, relevant and excellent professional services of [the petitioner] ." 
The petitioner has provided no legal bases to show that "relevant and good professional services" is 
equivalent to "excellence in the field," as required under the plain language of the criterion. Merely 
repeating the language of the statute or regulation does not satisfy the petitioner's burden of proof. 
See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d 
Cir. 1990); Avyr Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, No. 95 Civ. 10729, 1997 WL 188942 at *1, 5 
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1997). Similarly, we need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, 
Inc. v. UnitedStates Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 17 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
Fourth, the petitioner makes conclusory statements about the significance of the award, stating that it 
was "the highest honor of the accounting profession" and that the winners received "public 
recognition." In support of these statements the petitioner provides a number of website addresses, 
all of which appear to originate from translate.google.com which translated foreign language 
materials from other websites. The petitioner has not submitted the foreign language materials or 
their English translations that meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.P.R. 103.2(b )(3).Z 
Moreover, website addresses are not evidence. If the petitioner had wished that we consider the 
materials on these websites, he should have submitted printouts of the materials, along with 
information on the source of the materials and the reliability of the website. 
Finally, the petitioner has not shown the relevance of his involvement with the national sufficiency 
exam for accountants and auditors as relating to this criterion. On motion, the petitioner provides 
information relating to his being involved in drafting uestions for the exam. He has not stated that 
he received the because of his involvement in the exam, or 
that his involvement in the exam establishes that the award is qualifying under the criterion. 
1 Although the petitioner has filed a motion to reconsider, not a motion to reopen, he has submitted new evidence- a 
May 20, 2013 article entitled' -in support of his motion. 
2 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3) provides, "Any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS 
shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, 
and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown any error in our July 25, 2014 
decision that would form a basis for us to reconsider our previous determination. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification 
is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
On motion, the petitioner reiterates arguments he presented on appeal. Specifically, the petitioner 
asserts that he meets this criterion because of his membershi in the ' [the] 
' The petitioner further asserts that his "election for 
_ 
was only possible due to his outstanding achievements for the Brazilian society 
Gudged by recognized national and international experts in the accountant profession)." The 
petitioner reiterates his prior assertion that only "36 members were chosen Counselor in more than 
403,000 registered accountants in Brazil." In our July 25, 2014 decision, we considered these 
arguments in depth and concluded that they were either unsupported or insufficient to show the 
petitioner met this criterion. Specifically, we concluded that the petitioner did not submit relevant, 
probative and credible evidence, such as the associations' constitution, bylaws or other relevant 
information, relating to the associations' membership requirements. We further concluded that 
although the petitioner had shown that he is accredited to practice in certain fields after taking 
professional proficiency exams, "[ d]emonstrating the minimum proficiency to practice in a field, 
even as the result of a competitive examination, is not an outstanding achievement in that field." 
Finally, we concluded that although the evidence established the petitioner's position as a 
the record lacked evidence showing 
that the post required outstanding achievements or that membership was judged by national or 
international experts, as required by the plain language of the criterion. 
On motion, the petitioner has not identified any error in our decision as relating to this criterion or 
cited any legal authority as indicative of a legal error in our previous decision. Rather, the petitioner 
reiterates arguments he had already made on appeal and requests that we reconsider our decision. 
Such a request, unsupported by any legal authority, is not a valid basis for a motion to reconsider. 
See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown 
any error in our July 25, 2014 decision that would form a basis for us to reconsider our previous 
determination. 
Published material about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media, relating to the alien's work in the field for which classification is sought. Such 
evidence shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary 
translation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that the December 1999 material and November 2011 material, 
published in , meet this criterion. The petitioner asserts that 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
has "the largest circulation and printing of [sic] Brazil" and that it is "the biggest newspaper of Latin 
America." The petitioner states, "Paid Circulation- Octuber fsicl I 2012: Sundays: 321.535 copies­
Weekdays: 297.927 copies." The petitioner cites website as support for these 
figures. The petitioner has not submitted the actual material from the website that relates to these 
figures. On motion, the petitioner also lists a number of other website addresses, all of which appear 
to originate from which translated foreign language materials from other 
websites. Other than listing the website addresses, the petitioner has not submitted any materials 
from these websites. The materials from the websites appear to be foreign language materials. The 
petitioner has not submitted the actual foreign language materials or their English translations that 
meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.P.R. 103.2(b )(3). Moreover, website addresses are not 
evidence. If the petitioner had wished that we consider the materials on these websites, he should 
have submitted printouts of the materials, along with information on the source of the materials and 
the reliability of the website. 
In our July 25, 20104 decision, we concluded that the petitioner did not submitted relevant, probative 
and credible evidence showing that which the petitioner asserts on motion to be 
one of the "national dailies of general interest," constituted "other major media." Specifically, we 
concluded that evidence of the size of the without evidence of the circulation of 
was not sufficient to show that t e publication constituted other major media. 
Moreover, we concluded that the petitioner had not shown that the published materials in the record 
were about the petitioner. Specifically, we found that the petitioner's evidence, including a list of 
search results from an online search engine, his authorship of published materials, and the inclusion 
of his name in bibliographies, was insufficient to show that the materials were about the petitioner. 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that a December 1999 material is "about [him], 
as the very top of the endeavor." The petitioner did not submit a copy of the article along with a 
complete certified translation that meets the requirements at 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3). Rather, he 
submitted the website address through While it is the petitioner's burden to 
provide the foreign language document and a translation that complies with 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3), 
we did access the website the petitioner provided ? The article is about a new accounting 
examination and quotes the petitioner as a member of the discussing the 
purpose of the examination. The article is not about the petitioner and does not identify him as 
someone at the top of his field as claimed. As such, the petitioner has not established that this article 
is about him, relating to his work. 
The petitioner further asserts on motion that the November 2001 article is 
"regarding [him], as the very top of the endeavor." The article, however, is a question and answer 
piece about the impact of the change in Brazilian currency that mentions his name only in the 
introduction and a photograph caption identifying him as one "who failed to submit the form via the 
3 We accessed the website on December 12, 2014 and incorporated a printout of the article as translated by 
into the record of proceeding. We reiterate that this translation does not comply with the regulation 
at 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b )(3), which requires certified translations for foreign language documentation. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
Internet." The petitioner provides no legal support for his assertions that materials that briefly 
mention his name constitute materials about him, relating to his work in the field. 
Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown any error in our July 25, 2014 
decision that would form a basis for us to reconsider our previous determination. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). 
Evidence of the alien's original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because his publications have garnered 
citations, he was "the mentor and creator for questions for the 
in Brazil," and because of the Google search results for his name. 
The petitioner has not shown that a motion to reconsider is warranted. 
First, the petitioner asserts that "USCIS stated in this decision that 'his publications have been cited 
over 100 times."' This statement does not appear in our July 25, 2014 decision. In fact, we 
concluded in our decision that we could not determine how many citations the petitioner's published 
work had garnered, because the search results from scholar .google.com were for a limited portion of 
the petitioner's name (yielding results for individuals not the petitioner). The petitioner's quote 
comes from page nine of the director's January 26, 2012 decision. The petitioner has quoted the 
passage out of context. Specifically, the relevant part of the director's decision reads, "A Google 
Scholar search list of the beneficiary's name was submitted, and the beneficiary explained that his 
publication[s] have been cited over 100 times. However, the search results are not accompanied by 
certified translations, so no information can be gleaned from this printout." A reading of the 
decision shows that the director, as we did in our July 25, 2014 decision, concluded that the 
petitioner did not submit relevant, probative and credible evidence supporting his claim as to how 
many citations his published articles have garnered. 
Second, the petitioner provides a list of names, which includes his name that he claims were a 
As supporting evidence, the petitioner cites the 
February 2001, page 1 0" and a website address that originated from The 
petitioner has not submitted a copy of the journal or the online material. As such, he has not 
established the reliability or accuracy of the assertion that he drafted questions for the exam. The 
petitioner has also not provided details relating to what questions or how many questions he drafted, 
if any of the questions he drafted have been used in the exam, or how drafting exam questions 
constitutes contributions of major significance in the field that fundamentally advanced or 
significantly changed the field as a whole. 
Third, the petitioner has not shown that Google search results of his full name are indicative of his 
impact in a field. As stated in the director's January 26, 2012 decision, the "relevance of the Google 
search was uncertain," because a Google search includes results that mention the petitioner's name 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 7 
without providing information relating to the nature of the reference. As such, Google search 
results, without evidence that the search results relate to the petitioner's original contributions of 
major significance in the field, are insufficient to show that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown any error in our July 25, 2014 
decision that would form a basis for us to reconsider our previous determination. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
On motion, the petitioner asserts that he meets this criterion because he has performed a leading role 
for a number of organizations or establishments, including the judicial system in Brazil and Latin 
America, the the 
In our July 25, 2014 decision, we concluded that letters from individuals who were not 
the petitioner's current or former employers were insufficient to establish the petitioner met this 
criterion, because these individuals lacked first�hand knowledge of the petitioner's experience within 
the particular organizations or establishments. See 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(g)(1). We then considered all 
the evidence in the record, including letters from individuals who were not the petitioner's current or 
former employers. We concluded that the letters did not establish what role the petitioner performed 
�� or� 
how his role fit within the overall hierarchy of these 
organizations or establishments; or what impact the petitioner had in the organizations or 
establishments. On motion, the petitioner does not specifically identify any error in our July 25, 
2014 decision. Rather, he asserts that his roles in some of the organizations and establishments we 
did not discuss in our July 25, 2014 decision meet the criterion. The petitioner has not shown that a 
motion to reconsider is warranted. 
First, the petitioner' s receipt of the is not evidence that the petitioner meets this 
criterion. On motion, the petitioner asserts that his receipt of the award is "a strong proof that [he] 
had performed a leading role for the ' The receipt of 
awards falls under the criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and does not also serve to meet this 
criterion absent evidence that that the petitioner has performed a leading or critical role for 
qualifying organizations or establishments. The distinction between these two criteria is consistent 
with the statutory requirement for extensive evidence and the regulatory requirement that the 
petitioner meets at least three criteria. See section 203(b )(ll{A)(i) of the Act; see also 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, according to a document entitled " " the main 
objective of the award is "to encourage and recognize good initiatives of judges, lawyers, public 
defenders and prosecutors." Neither this document nor any other evidence in the record established 
that the petitioner received this award because of a leading or critical role he played in the judicial 
system in Brazil or Latin America. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
Second, the September 15, 1993 letter from Vice President of Operations 
at the indicates that the petitioner submitted suggestions to Mr. 
who then forwarded them on to the appropriate department. The letter does not indicate that the 
petitioner's "ideas had provided a great innovation for the financial institution," as the petitioner 
asserts on motion. In fact, the letter makes no reference to the impact, if any, the petitioner or his 
suggestions had at the bank or that the petitioner had performed either a leading or critical role for 
the bank. 
Third, the evidence in the record does not establish that the petitioner has performed either a leading 
or critical role for any educational institution. The record includes evidence that the petitioner, while 
emrloyed at , was invited to speak at 
conferences, and that the petitioner had taught classes at 
The evidence in the record does not establish how the petitioner's role in the educational 
institutions fit within the institutions' overall hierarchy, such that his role was leading within the 
institutions. The evidence in the record also does not establish that his impact on these institutions 
were such that his role was critical to the institutions. The petitioner has not explained how his 
participation in conferences impacted such that the impact indicates that he was someone who 
performed a critical role for the school. An August employment offer 
letter states that the petitioner, as a member of the school's adjunct faculty, "will make a significant 
contribution to the overall success of the Faculty Department and to [the school] through [his] 
efforts." In a July 2012 email addressed to all members of the school's faculty and librarians, the 
school's former Dean of Academic Affairs, gave notification of his upcoming 
resignation and discussed in general terms the impacts that the faculty and librarians had on the 
students. Nothing in the record establishes that the petitioner's impact at 
was such that he had performed a critical role for the school. Rather, the evidence shows that the 
petitioner performed the job he was hired to do at 
Finally, although the evidence includes the petitioner's involvement in other organizations or 
establishments, including the 
, it does not establish specifically how the petitioner's involvement fit within the hierarchy of 
the organizations or establishments or demonstrate that the petitioner had impacted the organizations 
or establishments consistent with someone who performed a critical role. For example, 
President of 
states that "[the petitioner's] exemplary conduct was of fundamental importance in defending the 
interest of Taxpayers." Mr. , notes that the petitioner had been "a representative of this 
' but he does not provide details on how the petitioner's role fit within the hierarchy 
of the organization or what specific impact the petitioner had on the organization. Mr. one 
sentence praising the petitioner in general terms is insufficient to show that the petitioner had 
performed a leading or critical role for the 
Similarly, although President of the 
states that the petitioner is "of acknowledged competence, possessing special 
expertise in tax matters and adviser of this Regional Board," Mr. provides no details relating to 
how the petitioner's role fits within the hierarchy of the organization or what impact the petitioner 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 9 
had in the organization. Mr. letter recommending the petitioner for a position as a member 
of the is insufficient to show that the petitioner has performed a 
leading or critical role for the As 
discussed, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulation does not satisfy the petitioner's 
burden of proof. See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd., 724 F. Supp. at 1108; Avyr Associates, Inc., 1997 WL 
188942, at *5. Similarly, we need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. 
Supp. at 17. 
Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown any error in our July 25, 2014 
decision that would form a basis for us to reconsider our previous determination. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). 
II. Arguments Presented in "Post Script" 
In addition to submitting a statement in support of the motion, the petitioner submits a document 
entitled "Post Script." We have reviewed and considered the arguments the petitioner presented and 
conclude that none of the arguments establish that we should grant a motion to reconsider. 
First, the petitioner discusses his without specifically challenging our conclusion 
that the award does not constitute a "one-time achievement" under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). Moreover, although the petitioner asserts that the award has received "worldwide 
media" attention since 2004, he has not presented any relevant, probative or credible evidence in 
support of his assertion. He cites a website address, stating that the website is an 
example of "the general media in the United States cover[ing] in 2009 the 'prestigious 
"' He, however, has presented no evidence relating to the nature of the website showing that 
it constitutes a notable media source. He has not even presented the material from the website that 
purportedly reported on the Regardless, the petitioner claims to have 
received the in 2005; he must therefore show the award's recognition in 2005, not 
in 2009. As stated in our previous decision, the record reveals that at some point after 2005, the 
awarding authority initiated an international The petitioner has made additional 
assertions relating to the award that are conclusory and not based on relevant, probative or credible 
evidence. As stated above, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient 
for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter ofSoffic� 22 I&N Dec. at 165 
(citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Moreover, we need not accept 
primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 17. 
Second, the petitioner quotes our July 25, 2014 decision out of context. For example, the petitioner 
asserts that we prejudged his case and made contradictory statements about his awards. These 
assertions are not supported by a complete reading of our decision. Specifically, on pages 12 to 13 
of our decision, we stated that the petitioner had not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement 
of presenting three types of evidence in the field of endeavor, as required under the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3); as such, we need not consider the evidence in the aggregate in a final merits 
determination. Rather, the proper conclusion is that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the antecedent 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 10 
regulatory requirement of presenting evidence that satisfied the initial evidence requirements. See 
Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010); Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 
(AAO 2010) (holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by 
its quality" and that USCIS examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and 
credibility, both individually ,and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine 
whether the fact to be proven is probably true"). In addition, on page 6 of our decision, when 
discussing the petitioner's awards, we stated that "[t]he petitioner does not continue to assert that the 
last items are qualifying," which on motion, the petitioner has quoted to say "the last three items are 
qualifying .. .. " The petitioner has misquoted our decision or quoted it out of context, which does 
not provide a basis to reopen our prior decision. 
Third, the petitioner makes conclusory statements, including statements relating to 
his involvement with the in 
Brazil, and his involvement with a number of organizations or establishments. As discussed in 
greater detail above, the petitioner has not shown that we erred in our decision as relating to the 
relevant criteria. As also stated above, going on record without supporting documentary evidence is 
not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Moreover, we 
need not accept primarily conclusory assertions. See 1756, Inc., 745 F. Supp. at 17. 
Finally, the petitioner states that our July 25, 2014 decision did not discuss that he was a "candidate 
to become immortal," or that he "hold[s] the chair number 12 at the 
' The petitioner also continues to discuss what he identifies as the director's errors. These 
statements do not warrant reconsideration of our decision. The petitioner has not identified the 
relevant criteria associated with his candidacy "to become immortal" or his holding "the chair 
number 12." As such, the petitioner has not shown the relevancy of these issues to our 
determination that he had not satisfied the antecedent regulatory requirement of presenting three 
types of evidence in the field of endeavor, as required under the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
The petitioner has not provided any legal basis indicating that we must address points that are not 
relevant or material to eligibility. In addition, we exercised de novo review in our July 25, 2014 
decision. As such, we reviewed and considered all the evidence in the record, even if we did not 
specifically mention each piece of evidence in our decision, and concluded that the petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. As we exercise de novo review, we 
need not specifically address each and every aspect of the director's previous decisions in our 
decision. See Soltane v. United States Dep 't of Justice, 381 F.3d 143, 145 (3d Cir. 2004). 
III. Conclusion 
The petitioner has not shown that the motion to reconsider should be granted, because he has not stated 
any valid reason for reconsideration, nor has he sufficiently supported any valid reason for 
reconsideration with pertinent legal precedent or other legal authority establishing that our July 25, 2014 
decision was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
Accordingly, the instant motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 11 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion is dismissed, our July 25, 2014 decision is affirmed, and the petition remains 
denied.