dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

.
U.S. Citizenship. 
and In:tm1gration 
Services · 
MATTER OF B-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office· 
DATE: MAR. 5, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORfyf 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, an artist, 1 seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary· ability in the arts. 
See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition and certified the denial to us.2 We 
affirmed the Director's denial in our certification decision. 3 We found that the Petitioner did not 
establish his eligibility because he had satisfied two criteria relating to published material and display 
of his work, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (vii), but not atleast three of the ten criteria listed in 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (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). We subsequently denied his 
combined motions to reconsider and reopen the matter. 4 
The Petitioner has now filed his second combined motions to reconsider and reopen the proceeding. 5 
He presents additional documentation and asserts that he has satisfied a third criterion, the original 
contributions of major significance in the field criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). He further 
maintains that he has established his sustained national or international acclaim in the field. 
Upon review, we will deny the Petitioner's second combined motions. 
1 tri his August 2018 statement, the Petitioner indicates that he is "a · artist." 
2 Previously, we remand~d the proceeding to the Director twice to allow him .to issue a new decision to fix his errors. 
3 See Matter of 8-l- , ID# 880078 (AAO Nov. 14, 2017). 
4 See Maller of 8-l- , ID# 1320289 (AAO July 24, 2018). 
5 While his Form 1-2908, Notice of Appeal or Motion, indicates that he is filing a motion to reconsider our last decision, 
the accompanying brief states that he is filing a motion to reopen the proceeding. He has also submitted additional 
documentation in support of the instant filing. As such, we will consider the submission as his combined motions to 
reconsider and reopen the matter. 
'Ii 1:.1 
i• 
Matter of B-L-
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
· In addition, the regulation specifies motion filing requirements, providing that a petitioner must submit 
"a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of 
any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires that ''[a] motion that 
does not meet applicable requirements shall be dis~issed." 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner has not submitted "a. statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable 
decision .has been or is the ·subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and 
status or result of the proceeding." He therefore has not met the motion filing requirements. 
See 8 C.F;R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). In the alternative, for the reasons we will 
discuss below, he has not shown that we should grant his combined motions. 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our previous 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). It must be supported by a pertinent precedent or 
adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) or Department of Homeland Security (OHS) policy. 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that the additional documents he has presented and his previously 
submitted materials constitute "[ e ]vidence of [his] original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or 
business-related contributions ,of major significance in the field." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v).· He; 
however, does not specifically claim that we erred or point to any errors in our previous decision. 
Accordingly, he has not demonstrated, or alleged, that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at 
the time. We will therefore deny his motio~ to reconsider the matter. · 
B. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .5(a)(2). We interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion 
and that ·have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original petition. 
2 
.
Matter of B-L-
Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 
"new facts." 
In our previous decision denying the Petitioner's first combined motions, we discussed the documents 
in the record at the time, including letters from other artists praising his work. We concluded that 
while the letters identify his art work, they "do not identify a specific contribution he made" or 
"indicate [his] impact on the field." We reiterated, as we had initially explained in our decision 
dismissing his appeal, "reference letters that do not provide specifics regarding the Petitioner's 
contributions and their impact on others in the field are· insufficient" to show he satisfies the original 
contributions of major significance criterion. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits an August 2018 statement as well as two letters from fellow artists, 
and respectively. These documents discuss the Petitioner's biographical 
information and his work. All three individuals reference his 1990s installation, but each calls it by a 
different name. The Petitioner states that it was "Cmion Generation," says it was "Canton 
Generation," and claims it was "Cartoon Generation." The Petitioner has presented 
inconsistent evidence relating to his art work and must "resolve the inconsistencies by independent 
objective evidence." Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591 (BIA 1988). 
Regardless, similar to evidence that was already in the record, the newly submitted materials do not 
demonstrate that the Petitioner meets the criterion under 8 C.F._R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). These documents, 
while praising the Petitioner, do not specifically articulate how the impact and influence of his work 
rise to the level of contributions of major significance in the field. Letters that lack specifics and 
simply use hyperbolic language do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that 
may form the basis for meeting this criterion. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, 
Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's 
Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADIJ-14 8,.9 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/legal-resources/policy-memoranda. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not stated 
new facts or supported them with documentary evidence. We will therefore deny his motion to reopen 
the matter. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's combined motions will be denied because they do not meet the motion filing 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), (a)(4). In the alternative, his motion to reconsider 
the matter will be denied because he has not established that our previous decision was based on an 
incorrect application of the law, regulations, or USClS or OHS policy . His motion to reopen the 
proceeding will also be denied because he has not submitted new evidence demonstrating that he meets 
the initial requirements for the classification. 
3 
Matter of B-L-
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of B-L-, ID# 2119400 (AAO Mar. 5, 2019~ 
4