dismissed EB-1A Case: Agricultural Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 18, 2024 In Re: 30470612 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a vocational agricultural teacher, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary 
ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ l 153(b )( 1)(A). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish he met the initial evidentiary requirements through either a receipt of a one-time achievement 
or satisfaction of at least three of the ten categories of evidence. We dismissed the appeal and two 
subsequent motion filings. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner provides a previously submitted table summarizing his eligibility claims for 
five of the regulatory criteria. In addition, the Petitioner references his recently obtained employment 
withl las a research scientist. The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" 
and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only 
consider new evidence to the extent that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the combined 
motion. Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the 
prior motion. Furthermore, we addressed these arguments in our latest decision, as well as in our other 
prior decisions. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of 
the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. 
Moreover, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or 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). Again, our review on motion is limited 
to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii). 
On motion, the Petitioner does not contest the correctness of our prior decision dismissing his second 
combined motion. Instead, the Petitioner's contentions in the current motion merely reargue eligibility 
claims we have already considered in our previous decisions. See e.g., Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 
56, 58 (BIA 2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, 
the same brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior 
Board decision"). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition 
remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2