dismissed EB-1A Case: Art

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5938070 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 11, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a tennis academy, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an alien of extraordinary ability 
in the arts as a curator and historian of expressive realism art. 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 extraordinaiy ability through sustained 
national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through 
extensive documentation. 
The Director denied the petition, concluding that the record did not establish that the Beneficiary met 
any of the ten evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), of which three are required. On 
appeal, although we concluded that the Beneficiary met the judging criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), we affirmed the Director's decision that she did not meet the initial 
evidence requirement of at least three criteria. 1 We subsequently denied the Petitioner's motion to 
reopen, as well as a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner has now filed its third motion. It asserts that we did not consider additional evidence 
submitted with its previous appeal and motions. 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. 
I. LAW 
The requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to 
reconsider must establish that our 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. We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the 
requested immigration benefit. 
1 See Matter of A-T-A-, ID# 737937 (AAO Dec. 19, 2017) 
II. ANALYSIS 
As was noted in our previous decision, the Petitioner has again not submitted a statement about 
whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial 
proceeding, as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). It has therefore not met the filing 
requirements for a motion. In the alternative, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not 
established that we should grant its motion to reconsider. 
With respect to the criterion for the Beneficiary's authorship of scholarly articles under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the Petitioner highlights an essay written by her and published in what it 
describes as an art catalogue. The Petitioner asserts that we "failed to even mention this criteria [sic]." 
A review of our previous decision shows that we considered the referenced evidence and provided a 
detailed analysis of the reasons why it was neither scholarly nor published in a professional or major 
trade publication or other major media. 2 
Turning to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), which requires evidence of the Beneficiary's 
leading or critical role for an organization or establishment having a distinguished reputation, the 
Petitioner asserts that we failed to consider evidence of the Beneficiary's appointment to lead a large 
art donation for thel !Foundation. Here again, review of our previous decision reveals 
that this evidence about the foundation and her role within it was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed. 
In addition, the Petitioner repeats the vague assertion in its previous motion regarding "other roles" 
held by the Beneficiary, but does not point to specific evidence in the record or a law or policy that 
was misapplied in our previous decision. 
While the Petitioner farther asserts in its brief that the Beneficiary meets six of the evidentiary criteria, 
it provides no farther legal or factual arguments regarding an additional three criteria beyond those 
already discussed above. It has therefore not established that our previous decision regarding the 
criteria relating to the Beneficiary's membership in associations, original contributions, or display of 
her work at artistic exhibitions or showcases was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, 
or was incorrect based upon the evidence in the record. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion to reconsider this matter is dismissed because it does not meet the motion 
filing requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.4(a)(l)(iii)(C). In the alternative, the motion is dismissed 
because the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy, or that it was incorrect based upon evidence in the record of proceeding 
at the time of filing. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2 See Matter of A-T-A-, ID# 2060602 (AAO Feb. 21, 2019) 
2