dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5444507 
Motion on Administration Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 21, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , an artist who works in several different media , 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)(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. 1 We 
affirmed the Director's denial, determining that the Petitioner did not establish, as required, that he 
has received a major internationally-recognized award, or, in the alternative, that he meets at least 
three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification. 2 The Petitioner subsequently filed 
two combined motions to reopen and reconsider. We dismissed both combined motions, 3 and the 
matter is now before us again on a motion to reopen. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and states that he has now established that he 
meets three of the ten evidentiary criteria and is eligible for the classification sought. 
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 the motion to reopen . 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on factual grounds and must (1) state the new facts to be provided in the 
reopened proceeding; and (2) be supported by affidavits or other 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 . 
1 Prior to this certified decision, we remanded this matter to the Director twice with instructions to correct certain errors 
and issue a new decision. 
2 See Matter of B-L-, ID# 880078 (AAO Nov. 14, 2017). In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner met 
two of the initial evidentiary criteria, relating to published material about him and his work, and display of his work at 
artistic exhibitions and showcases . See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii) and (v). 
3 See Matter of B-L-, ID# 1320289 (AAO July 24, 2018) and Matter of B-L-, ID# 2119400 (AAO Mar. 5, 2019) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Prior Decision 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
prior adverse decision. Here, the subject of the prior decision was our dismissal of the Petitioner's 
second combined motion to reopen and reconsider. As such, the purpose of this decision is to examine 
any new facts and supporting evidence that pertain to the dismissal of that motion. 
In our immediate prior decision, we determined that the Petitioner did not meet the requirements for a 
motion to reconsider at 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3) because he did not specifically point to any errors in our 
previous decision. Accordingly, we determined that the Petitioner had neither alleged nor 
demonstrated that our previous decision, dismissing its first combined motion, 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. 
With respect to the Petitioner's most recent motion to reopen, we acknowledged that he submitted new 
evidence that included an August 2018 personal statement as well as letters from two fellow artists 
who discussed his biographical information and work. This evidence was intended to demonstrate 
that the Petitioner met the evidentiary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), relating to original 
contributions of major significance in his field. We determined that the new letters, while 
complimentary of the Petitioner and his work, were similar to evidence already in the record, and did 
not specifically articulate how the impact and influence of his artwork rises to the level of a 
contribution of major significance in the field. Therefore we determined that the Petitioner had not 
presented new facts sufficient to overcome our prior determination that he did not meet this criterion. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
With the instant motion, the Petitioner submits an excerpt of a book titled Ten Years ofContempormy 
Art Oocuwenta Ibe exceruted oaoes are foU-oaoe obataoraobs caotiaued as foUaws· j I 
I 1 
.__ ________________ ~__.__T=h=e.;;.....;;.c.;;.;.a,;;..t=i..;;_on=-.;;.a=ls;;_;o-includes four names, one of which 
is the Petitioner's, and the date and location~-------~· If the book's curators provided 
any commentary or discussion of this project or its significance to accompany the photographs, or any 
additional information regarding the Petitioner's involvement in the project, it was not included among 
the pages submitted for our review. 
The only context for the new evidence is provided in counsel's brief He notes that the book "was 
compiled by two famous artists to record and document most precious contemporary art work from 
2003 to 2013" and notes that "documenta traditionally features artists who have had a significant 
influence on modem art (such as Picasso and Kandinsky)." Counsel asserts that the Petitioner's 
inclusion in this "important book ... underscores his contributions to and widespread recognition in 
the art community." The assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 
I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) ( citing Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 
1980)). Counsel's statements must be substantiated in the record with independent evidence, which 
may include affidavits and declarations. 
2 
Therefore, while the evidence submitted on motion is new, it does not overcome our previous finding 
that the Petitioner did not meet the original contributions of major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(v), either viewed alone or in the context of the evidence previously submitted to satisfy 
this criterion. Further, we note that the newly submitted book excerpt is comparable to other evidence 
provided previously. While the Petitioner's inclusion in such published collections of art is notable, 
he has not shown how his original artistic contributions have been of major influence in the field, by 
providing, for example, evidence that his contributions have been widely implemented, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance 
in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The motion to reopen is denied because the Petitioner has not submitted new evidence demonstrating 
that he meets the initial requirements for the classification sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3