dismissed EB-1A Case: Arts

Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 27917006 Date: OCT. 2, 2023 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner 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. § 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 the Petitioner did not 
establish that he satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements through evidence of a one-time 
achievement or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We 
summarily dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal concluding that he did not specifically 
identify any erroneous conclusion or law or statement of fact in the unfavorable decision as a basis for 
the appeal. 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). 
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). 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. 
In our decision summarily dismissing the Petitioner's appeal, we stated that his submission did not 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision. 
Further, while the Petitioner indicated that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to 
the AAO within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal, the record did not show that he submitted those 
materials within that period. An officer to whom an appeal is taken shall summarily dismiss any 
appeal when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(a)(l)(v). 
As noted above, review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the prior adverse decision. 
Accordingly, we examine any new facts and arguments to the extent that they pertain to our summary 
dismissal of the Petitioner's appeal. Thus, the issue before us is whether we properly found that the 
Petitioner's appeal met the applicable requirements for summary dismissal under the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On motion, the Petitioner provides additional evidence (pay stubs and a letter of support from his 
employer) addressing the Director's determination regarding his eligibility for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability under the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), but he does 
not address our summary dismissal of the appeal. 1 He offers no new evidence or facts on motion to 
overcome the stated grounds for our summary dismissal decision. Moreover, he does not contend that 
our appellate decision was based on an incorrect application of law or users policy or that it was 
incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of our decision. 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our summary dismissal that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has he shown that we erred as a matter of law or users policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our appellate decision. 
Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore 
remains dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
1 This evidence relates to the merits of the Petitioner's eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability. His opportunity 
to contest the Director's denial decision on the merits of his extraordinary ability claim was on appeal. Absent new facts 
or evidence to change the outcome of our summary dismissal of the appeal, we need not render a determination on the 
merits of the underlying petition here. 
2