dismissed EB-1A Case: Barista

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 23272889 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 08, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a barista, 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of this classification by 
demonstrating his receipt of a major, internationally recognized award or meeting at least three of the 
evidentiary criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from 
that decision, as well as four subsequent motions to reopen. The matter is now before us on a fifth 
motion to reopen, in which the Petitioner submits evidence intended to meet one of the evidentiary 
criteria. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement (that 
is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then 
he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria 
listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain 
media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets the initial evidence requirements (through either a one-time achievement or 
meeting three lesser criteria), we then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits 
determination and assess whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and 
demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 
4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2011). 
II. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 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. A 
motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen to instances where the 
Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening, a petitioner must not 
only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly completed Form I-290B, 
Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause for granting the motion. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior 
decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has submitted new 
facts to warrant reopening of our decision to dismiss the Petitioner's fourth motion. We therefore 
incorporate our prior decision by reference and will repeat only certain facts and evidence as necessary 
to address the Applicant's claims on motion. 
Motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions 
for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. I NS v. Doherty, 502 
U.S. 314, 323, (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988)); see also Selimi v. Ashcroft, 360 
F.3d 736, 739 (7th Cir. 2004). There is a strong public interest in bringing proceedings to a close as 
promptly as is consistent with giving both parties a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective 
cases. INS v. Abudu, 485 at 107. 
Based on its discretion, USCIS "has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case" and "should have 
the right to be restrictive." Id. at 108. Granting motions too freely could permit endless delay when 
2 
foreign nationals continuously produce new facts to establish eligibility, which could result in needlessly 
wasting time attending to filing requests. See generally INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 108. The new facts 
must possess such significance that, "if proceedings ... were reopened, with all the attendant delays, 
the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case." Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 
464, 473 (BIA 1992); see also Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230, 1239-40 (10th Cir. 2013). 
Therefore, a party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 at 110. 
With the current motion, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or shown that he received a major, internationally recognized 
award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)­
(x). In his fourth motion, the Petitioner did not identify any error in our previous discussion of the 
Sprudge publication. In our decision dismissing that motion, we also determined that the Petitioner 
had not established that he met a fifth, previously unclaimed criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
relating to membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require 
outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts 
in their disciplines or fields. 
With the present motion, the Petitioner reasserts his eligibility under the same criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). He resubmits the same evidence he provided with his previous motion and 
does not explain what, if anything, is new about the evidence. As we already explained, the evidence 
does not establish that either the IBG or its board of directors is an association which requires 
outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Additionally, as our prior decision noted, the Petitioner must establish eligibility as of the petition's 
filing date. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1). Accordingly, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for 
reopening the proceedings. 
The Petitioner has not overcome the grounds for dismissal of the prior motion, or established el igibi I ity 
for the classification he seeks. We will therefore dismiss the motion to reopen. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome 
the grounds underlying our prior decision. Therefore, the motion to reopen will be dismissed for the 
above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3