dismissed EB-1A Case: Drama Direction

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-B-H-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 15, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a drama director, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
arts. 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 I-140, Immigrant Petition 
Alien Worker. We dismissed his appeal 1 and subsequently denied his motion to reconsider and motion 
to reopen. 2 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
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 two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories 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 submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we 
will then determine whether the totality of 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. 3 
1 See Matter of B-B-H-, ID# 935324 (AAO Mar. 6, 2018). 
2 See Matter of B-B-H-, ID# 1642778 (AAO Oct. 1, 2018). 
3 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F .3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ( discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first 
counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCJS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 
2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
Matter ofB-B-H-
In addition, a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The 
requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidentiary criteria 
applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability, either a major, internationally recognized award or 
at least three of ten possible forms of documentation. Specifically, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not meet any of the criteria. We then dismissed his subsequent appeal, concluding that 
although the Petitioner fulfilled three criteria, 4 he did not establish sustained national or international 
acclaim, that he is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor, and that his 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. Subsequently, we 
denied his motion to reconsider and motion to reopen, determining that the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that we erred as a matter oflaw or policy and that his new evidence showed his eligibility 
for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
In the current motion to reconsider, the Petitioner presents a nearly identical brief with previously 
submitted documentation. 
III. ANALYSIS 
At the outset, the Petitioner did not include the required statement about whether or not the validity of 
the unfavorable decision has been, or is, the subject of any judicial proceeding. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be 
dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). Moreover, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner's motion 
to reconsider does not establish that we erred in our prior decision. 
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). Here, the Petitioner provides an almost identical 
brief that he previously presented in suppmt of his prior motion, along with earlier submitted 
documentation. The Petitioner, however, did not offer any arguments or refer to any legal authority, 
demonstrating that we erred in denying his prior motions. Instead, the Petitioner makes references to 
the Director's original decision denying the petition and our initial decision dismissing the appeal 
without addressing our previous decision denying his motions. Further, a motion to reconsider is not 
a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by 
generally alleging e1ror in the prior decision. Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 
2006). Instead, the moving party must specify the factual and legal issues that were decided in error 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the 
fact to be proven is probably true." Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
4 We determined that the Petitioner satisfied the following three criteria: judging under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), artistic 
display under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii), and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
2 
Matter ofB-B-H-
or overlooked in the decision or must show how a change m law materially affects the prior 
decision. Id. at 60. 
Here, the Petitioner does not contend that our previous decision denying the motions was made in 
en-or in accordance with an incon-ect application of law or policy. As noted above, a motion to 
reconsider must include specific allegations as to how we en-ed as a matter of fact or law in our prior 
decision. Because the Petitioner did not raise such allegations of en-or, we will deny the motion to 
reconsider. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner did not demonstrate that our previous decision denying his motions was based on an 
incon-ect application of law or policy. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to 
establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; 
Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been 
met. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of B-B-H-, ID# 3143731 (AAO May 15, 2019) 
3