dismissed EB-1A Case: Athletics

.
U.S. Ci tizerishi p 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF S-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : NOV . 23, 2018 
MOTrON ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140 , IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a speed skater and coach, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in athletics . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ I I 53(b )(I )(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 Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petitioner Alien Worker. We dismissed the Petitioner 's appeal and denied his subsequent motion. 1 
The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. For the reasons 
discussed below , we will deny the motions. 
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.S(a)(3) , and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(2). We may grant a motion that • satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
Following our dismissal of his appeal, the Petitioner filed combined motions to reopen _ and 
reconsider accompanied by a copy of an email from the and 
a brief statement that did not contest or mention our appellate decision . The Petitioner did not assert 
new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding . Nor did he cite binding precedent decisions or 
other legal authority establishing that we incorrectly applied the pertinent law or agency policy and 
that our decision was erroneous based on the evidence of record at the time. Accordingly, we denied 
1 See Mauer ofS-L-, ID# 926509 (AAO Feb. 27, 2018) and Mauer ofS-l-, ID# 1585106 (AAO Apr. 26, 2018). 
2 This email did not challenge any of our appellate findings. Instead, it discussed the Petitioner's activities that post­
dated the filing of the Form 1-140. Eligibility must be demonstrated at the time of the filing. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.2(b )(I) . 
.
Matter of S-L-
his combined motions finding they did not satisfy the applicable requirements . Our decision noted 
that the Petitioner's statement requested additional time after the motion filing date to submit further 
documentation. We explained that, although the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(vii) states that 
a petitioner may be permitted additional time to submit a brief or additional evidence to us in 
connection with an appeal, no such provision applies to a motion to reopen or reconsider . The 
additional evidence must comprise the motion. See 8 C.F.R §§ I 03.5(a)(2) and (3). 
We may, for proper cause shown, reopen the proceeding or reconsider the prior decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i). In his current combined motions , although the Petitioner provides further evidence 
and makes arguments relating to our appellate decision and the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i), (v), and (viii/, he has not presented new evidence or arguments establishing that 
our denial of his combined motions was in error. If the Petitioner were to provide evidence or 
arguments demonstrating that we erred by denying those motions, then there would be grounds to 
reopen and reconsider the proceeding. The Petitioner, however, has not shown that our prior decision 
was erroneous or provided new facts that would overcome the deficiencies we identified. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was incorrect based on the record 
before us, nor does his new evidence on motion demonstrate his eligibility for the benefit sought. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied . 
Cite as Matter <?fS-L-, ID# 1762973 (AAO Nov . 23, 2018) 
3 Even if we considered his arguments and evidence, they are not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner meets any 
of these regulatory criteria. For example, regarding the cri1erion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). the Petitioner's event 
results from the 2018 post-date the filing of the petition 
and he has not demonstrated that the awards he received at this competition rise to the level of nationally or 
internationally recognized awards for excellence in the speed skating field. In addition. with respect to the letter from 
, the Petitioner's involvement with this club post-dates the filing of the petition. Furthermore, the letters he 
offers from 
are not sufficient to establish that he meets the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (viii). Th~s, the ne; 
evidence would not overcome our detennination on appeal that he has not submitted the required initial evidence of 
either a qualifying one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
2