dismissed EB-1A Case: Administrative Services Manager

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 24187550 
Motion of Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 11, 2023 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an administrative services manager, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A) , 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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, concluding that the record did not 
establish the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of this classification through either 
evidence of a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award), or meeting three of 
the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that 
decision, as well as three subsequent combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The matter is now 
before us on a fourth motion to reopen and reconsider. 
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 motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts to be proved and be supported by affidavits or other evidence . 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, 
and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of 
the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the benefit sought. 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) . Accordingly, we 
examine any new arguments to the extent that they pertain to our dismissing the Petitioner's third 
motion to reopen, and whether we erred in determining that the Petitioner did not establish that we 
incorrectly applied law or policy in dismissing the third motion to reconsider. 
Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions 
for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 
U.S. 314,323, (1992) (citingINSv. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988)); see also Selimi v. Ashcroft, 360 
F.3d 736, 739 (7th Cir. 2004). There is a strong public interest in bringing proceedings to a close as 
promptly as is consistent with giving both parties a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective 
cases. INS v. Abudu, 485 at 107. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief The Petitioner provides a brief description of her work 
experience and some highlights of her achievements that have been previously outlined in the record. 
Since the current motion to reopen does not include new facts or new evidence, the motion does not meet 
the requirement of a motion to reopen and must be dismissed. 
Regarding the motion to reconsider, we stress again that in order to have established merit for 
reconsideration of our latest decision the petitioner must both state the reasons why the petitioner 
believes the most recent decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; and 
specifically cite laws, regulations, precedent decisions, and/or binding policies that the petitioner 
believed we misapplied in our prior decision. 
In this case, the prior decision at issue is our decision dated May 26, 2022, whereby we dismissed the 
motion to reconsider since the brief submitted with the third motion was almost identical to the brief 
submitted with the second motion. The current motion brief states that we abused our discretion by 
applying the incorrect legal standard but did not provide any evidence to support this claim. To prevail 
in a motion to reconsider, the petitioner cannot merely disagree with our conclusions, but rather it 
must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of law or policy in our immediate prior decision. See 
Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to reconsider is not a process 
by which the party may submit in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally 
alleging error in the prior decision.) 
Accordingly, although we acknowledge that the Petitioner submits a brief, we determine that the 
Petitioner does not directly address the conclusions we reached in our immediate prior decision or 
provide reasons for reconsideration of those conclusions. Likewise, the brief in support of the current 
motion also lacks any cogent argument as to how we misapplied the law or USCIS policy in dismissing 
the prior motion to reconsider. 
In light of the above, we conclude that this motion does not meet all the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider and must therefore be dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
In this matter, the Petitioner has not overcome our prior decision or shown proper cause to reopen or 
reconsider this matter. In visa petition proceedings, it is a petitioner's burden to establish eligibility 
for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not 
met that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2