dismissed EB-1A Case: Administrative Services

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 20598025 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 26, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an administrative services manager, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition in November 2018 , concluding that 
the record did not establish that the Petitioner had either demonstrated a one-time achievement, that 
is, a major , internationally recognized prize or award, or satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary 
criteria, as required. The Applicant filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider the decision. 
The Director dismissed the combined motion in May 2019. 
The Petitioner subsequently filed an appeal , and then two combined motions , with us. We dismissed 
the appeal in July 2020, and the motions in April 2021 and August 2021. The matter is now before us 
on a third combined motion .1 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C . § 1361. Upon review , we will dismiss the latest combined motion . 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(l)(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 forth a multi-part analysis . First, a petitioner 
can demonstrate international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
1 Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reason s as petition s forrehearingand 
motions fora new trial on the basis ofnewly discovered evidence. SeeINSv . Doherty, 502U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citinglNS 
v. Abud u, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). 
achievement, that is, a major, internationally recognized award. If that petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of 
the ten criteria 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 the initial evidence requirements through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria, 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); Rijalv. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be suppmted 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons for reconsideration and establish thatthe decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Under the above regulations, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and 
a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
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 reopening or 
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. See8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
III. ANALYSIS 
In August 2021, we dismissed the Petitioner's second motion to reconsider with a six-page decision 
in which we discussed the Petitioner's arguments and explained why they did not overcome the basis 
of the appeal's denial and were deficient. The Petitioner's latest motion does not address or rebut the 
conclusions in our August 2021 decision. Instead, apart from a few introductory paragraphs, the brief 
for the Petitioner's latest (third) motion is almost identical to the brief submitted with her second 
motion. The Petitioner does not cite any statute, regulation, case law, or other sources to establish that 
our prior conclusions regarding these arguments were incorrect. 
2 
As noted above, a motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that 
the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider is not a process to seek reconsideration by generally alleging 
error in the prior decision. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). The Petitioner's 
resubmission oflargely the same brief does not show proper cause for reconsideration. 
In her second motion, the Petitioner asserted that she had previously submitted relevant new evidence 
that we have not yet duly considered. When we dismissed that second motion in August 2021, we 
discussed the evidence and explained why it did not satisfy regulatory criteria at 8 C.F .R. § 204. 5 (h )(3) 
relating to awards, memberships, and salary. The Petitioner's latest motion includes a copy of our 
August 2021 decision. Nevertheless, rather than answer or contest any of our discussion of the 
evidence in question, the Petitioner repeats the claim that we have not addressed the evidence at all, 
and therefore "reopening of this case and reconsideration of this evidence ... is required." 
For the reasons explained above, the Petitioner's latest filing does not meet the requirements of a 
motion to reconsider. We will therefore dismiss the motion. 
Because the motion brief is mostly identical to the brief submitted with her prior motion, the latest 
motion includes no new facts. The Petitioner's latest motion also includes no new evidence. As a 
result, the motion does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen, and must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3