dismissed EB-1A Case: Acting

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 16156434 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: May 13, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an actress, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See Immigration 
and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(1 )(A). This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in 
their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this 
classification, as required. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal of the denial. The 
Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, which we also dismissed. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss both the motion to reopen and 
the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that 
the decision was based on an incorrectapplicationoflaw or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reconsideration, a 
petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly 
completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause 
for granting the motion . We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements . See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation. The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that 
small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The 
implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets fmih a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate sustained acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a 
one-time achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not 
submit this evidence, then they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least 
three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)---{x) (including items such as awards, 
published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) 
( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first counted and then, if fulfilling the 
required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); see also 
Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 
(W.D. Wash. 2011). 
III. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision," which in this case was our dismissal of the Petitioner's previous combinedmotion to reopen 
and motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). The issue before us is whether the Petitioner 
has submitted new facts to warrant reopening or established that our decision to dismiss the previous 
combined motion was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy. 
A. Prior AAO Decision 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal after determining that she did establish that she meets any of the 
initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 1 In the previous motion to reopen, the 
Petitioner submitted evidence that she had authored a book published in September 2019, almost two 
years after the petition's December 2017 filing date. The Petitioner maintained that this new evidence 
demonstrated that she satisfied the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), which relates to authorship 
of scholarly articles in the field in professional or major trade publications or other major media. In 
dismissing the motion to reopen, we determined that the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her 
publication of the e-book satisfied any of this criterion's requirements. Specifically, it was not shown 
to be a scholarly article in the acting field, nor did the self-published e-book qualify as a professional 
1 On appeal, thePetitionermaintained that she met four criteria at8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), relatingto lessernationally 
or internationally recognized a wards or prizes, published material in major media, original contributions of major 
significance in the field, and performance in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v) and (viii). 
2 
or major trade publication or other major media. Further, because the book was published in 2019, it 
could not establish that the Petitioner met the eligibility requirements for this criterion at the time of 
filing, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b )(1 ). Accordingly, we determined that she did not show proper 
cause to warrant reopening. 
With respect to the prior motion to reconsider, we observed that, apart from the Petitioner's new claim 
that she could satisfy the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the brief submitted in supp01i of the 
motion was essentially identical to the Petitioner's previous appellate brief. Although the Petitioner 
contended that we erred in our dismissal of the appeal, she did not attempt to identify or rebut any 
specific errors in our decision or establish how we had misapplied the law or USCIS policy in 
adjudicating her appeal. For this reason, we also dismissed the motion to reconsider. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
In support of the current motion, the Petitioner submits new evidence intended to demonstrate that she 
seeks to enter the United States to continue to work in her area of extraordinary ability, as required by 
section 203(b )(1 )(A)(ii) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). However, the Petitioner's intention to 
work as an actress in the United States is not at issue in this proceeding, as it was not a basis for either 
the denial of the petition or our dismissal of her appeal or previous motion. As discussed, the petition 
was denied and the appeal dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that she satisfies the initial 
evidence requirements for this classification by meeting at least three of the ten criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 
204 .5 (h)(3 )(i)-(x). 
The Petitioner does not claim that the newly submitted evidence, most of which dates from 2020, 
relates to the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Further, even if it did, the Petitioner 
must establish that she met at least three of those criteria as of the date of filing in 20 I 7, as required 
by 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). The new evidence establishes that the Petitioner has her own Y ouTube 
channel on which she posts content such as commercials, makeup and beauty tutorials, and interviews 
with other performing artists. She provides background information regarding some of the individuals 
who collaborated with her on these videos. She also provides evidence that she appeared as a guest 
on the ...___,~---~------.-.1 podcast irl I 2020, as well as screenshots from Instagram as 
evidence of her attendance at several events in 2020. 
The Petitioner's newly submitted evidence, which does not relate to the grounds for denial or pre-date 
the filing of the petition, does not establish proper grounds for reopening. We will therefore dismiss 
the motion to reopen. 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
The Petitioner's brief in support of the motion to reconsider, apart from a section addressing the new 
evidence discussed above, is almost identical to the briefs that she previously submitted on appeal and 
in support of the first motion. The Petitioner includes a general statement that we erred in dismissing 
the previous motion but she does not specifically address our reasons for dismissal, nor does she 
attempt to identify or rebut any specific errors in that decision. 
3 
A motion to reconsider must specify the factual and legal issues that were decided in error or 
overlooked in our prior decision. Cf Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). 2 ("[A] 
motion to reconsider is not a process by which a patiy may submit, in essence, the same brief presented 
on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior. . . decision. The moving 
party must specify the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked 
in our initial decision .... ") 
Here, the Petitioner has not specifically addressed our most recent decision or stated any reasons for 
reconsideration of that decision. Nor does she contend that our prior decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of 
record at the time of that decision. Therefore, the motion does not meet the requirements of a motion 
to reconsider and must be dismissed. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration. 
Accordingly, the combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2 0-S-G- relates to motions to reconsider before the BoardofT mmigration Appeals, governed by 8 C.F.R. § I 003.2(b )(I), 
which states: "A motion to reconsidershallstatethe reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of factor law in the 
prior Bo a rd decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority." These requirements a re fundamentally sim ilarto those 
foundat8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). and therefore the same logic applies. 
4