dismissed EB-1A Case: Barista

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 22, 2023 In Re: 2913 7920 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a barista, seeks classification under the employment-based, first-preference (EB-I) 
immigrant visa category as a noncitizen with "extraordinary ability." See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b )(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) . To qualify for this category, a petitioner 
must demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and submit "extensive documentation" 
of recognized achievements in their field. Id. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner met only two of ten initial evidentiary criteria for the requested immigrant category - one 
less than required. The Director also found insufficient evidence of the Petitioner's required intent to 
continue working in his field in the United States. We dismissed the Petitioner 's appeal and his 
following seven motions to reopen. See In Re: 27520761 (AAO May 30, 2023). The matter returns 
to us on his eighth motion to reopen. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence, and address "the latest 
decision in the proceeding ." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii), (2). We may grant a motion meeting these 
requirements and demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit. In contrast, we must dismiss a 
motion that does not meet applicable requirements . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
The Petitioner's motion to reopen includes evidence. But, contrary to regulations, the motion does 
not address the latest decision in the proceeding . The filing contains copies of website printouts. 
These materials purportedly support an initial evidentiary criterion requiring a potential noncitizen 
with extraordinary ability to show published materials about them in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). The latest decision in the 
proceeding, however, concerned documentation for a different evidentiary criterion regarding the 
Petitioner's purported membership in associations in his field requiring outstanding achievements. 
See In Re: 27520761, at *l; see also 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 1 
1 Our dismissals of the Petitioner's fourth, fifth, and sixth motions also solely considered the evidentiary requirement at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). See In Re: 16159429 (AAO May 5, 2022); In Re: 23272884 (AAO Nov. 8, 2022); In Re: 
25690671 (AAO Feb. 13, 2023). 
The Petitioner's motion does not address the latest decision in the proceeding. We must therefore 
dismiss it. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2