dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

(b)(6)
MATTER OF A-0-R-D-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAY 27, 2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a former professor at the seeks 
classification as an individual "of extraordinary ability" in education. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) § 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This classification makes visas 
available to foreign nationals 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, Texas Service Center, denied the petition and dismissed two subsequent motions. The 
Petitioner appealed the matter to us. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, and reaffirmed that 
decision in three motion adjudications: The matter is now before us on a fourth motion · to 
reconsider. We will deny the motion. 
I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
In support of his motion to reconsider, the Petitioner submits a copy of our latest decision dated 
November 6, 2015; a copy of a redacted January 28, 2015, Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
non-precedent decision for a competitive runner seeking classification as an individual "of 
extraordinary ability" in athletics; a November 23, 2015, email from U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) to the Petitioner explaining the need for a Freedom of Information 
Act request and consent from the subject of record to obtain an un-redacted version of the 
aforementioned non-precedent decision; and a June 24, 2015, email from USCIS responding to a 
inquiry from 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions or legal citations to establish that the decision was 
based on an incorrect 
application of law or USCIS policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application or petition 
must, when filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence of record at the 
time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). In addition, a motion to reconsider cannot be 
used to raise a legal argument that could have been raised earlier in the proceedings. See Matter of 
Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 220 (BIA 1990, 1991 ). 
Matter of A-0-R-D-L-
On motion, the Petitioner argues that we applied an incorrect standard of proof in our prior decisions. 
In most administrative immigration proceedings, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the 
evidence that he is eligible for the benefit sought. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010). 
Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and 
credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is "more likely than not" or 
. "probably" true, the applicant has satisfied the standard of proof. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 
79-80 (Comm'r 1989). 
The Petitioner's citation of cases referring to the standard of proof in immigration proceedings does 
not alone demonstrate that our previous decision was based on. an incorrect application of law or 
policy. See 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(3). In each of our previous decisions, we explained at length why 
the Petitioner had not shown that it is more likely than not that he qualifies for the classification 
sought. The Petitioner does not indicate how our analysis involved the application of a higher 
standard of proof. Upon review, we find that we appropriately analyzed each piece of evidence, and, 
when concluding that it did not meet a given criterion, provided an explanation. The Petitioner does 
not explain how the guidance in E-M- or Chawathe demonstrates that any of our findings applied an 
incorrect standard of proof. Accordingly, the Petitioner's reliance on the very general language in 
those two precedent decisions does not identify an issue that would support a grant of the instant 
motion. 
The Petitioner also cites to Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I&N Dec. 254 (BIA 2014) and argues that the 
"AAO can't ignore the 'comparable grounds' of [our] published decision of January 28, 2015." 
Abdelghany identifies the circumstances under which a lawful permanent resident who has accrued 7 
consecutive years of lawful unrelinquished domicile in the United States and who is removable or 
deportable by virtue of a plea or conviction entered before April 24, 1996, and between April 24, 
1996, and April 1, 1997, is not eligible for discretionary relief under former section 212( c) of the 
Act. The Abdelghany decision does not provide any pertinent guidance for those seeking immigrant 
visa classification as individuals of extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act. 
Further, there is no finding in Abdelghany compelling us to consider the "comparable grounds" of a 
non-precedent decision. 
The January 28, 2015, AAO decision identified by the Petitioner is a non-precedent decision. While 
the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(c) provides that our precedent decisions are binding on all USCIS 
employees in the administration of the Act, unpublished decisions are not similarly binding. Non­
precedent decisions are only binding on the parties to those cases, and they do not create or modify 
USCIS policy or practice with respect to any other cases. See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-
602-0086.1, Precedent and Non-Precedent Decisions ofthe Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), 
November 18,2013. 
While the Petitioner contends that the aforementioned policy memorandum indicates USCIS may 
consider a non-precedent decision for instructional value, the January 28, 2015, decision involved a 
competitive athlete in track and field events. The Petitioner has not shown that the field in which he 
claims extraordinary ability, education, is sufficiently analogous to the field of expertise discussed in 
the non-precedent case. The Petitioner offers a criterion to criterion comparison between the two 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-0-R-D-L-
cases, in which he lists the quantity of the athlete's accomplishments and argues that his evidence 
demonstrated a higher level of expertise and acclaim. The Petitioner maintains that his petition 
should be similarly approved because he provided more evidence than the competitive runner whose 
appeal we sustained. For example, the Petitioner states multiple times that the competitive runner 
had just for and place. The Petitioner's statement, however, is incorrect and 
does not represent the athlete's complete record of achievement in track and field competitions. 
Although the letter from the athlete's college coach specifically mentioned her and place 
awards at major international competitions, her coach also stated that she "medaled multiple 
times in [her country] during her career as a Furthermore, our January 28, 2015, decision 
indicated that the athlete "submitted medals and event results demonstrating that she received 
nationally and internationally recognized 
awards as a competitive runner." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) requires the Petitioner to support his motion to reconsider 
with "any pertinent precedent decisions." The Petitioner's submission of the non-precedent decision 
for an Olympic athlete whose appeal we sustained and the Petitioner's accompanying arguments do 
not establish that we erred in adjudicating his previous motion. As we discussed in Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 376, "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but 
by its quality," and we examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 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." Thus, at issue is the quality of the Petitioner's 
accomplishments rather than a comparison of the number of exhibits with an approvable petition. 
The Petitioner has also not provided sufficient legal authority explaining how an approved petition 
involving an athlete demonstrates that his petition should similarly be approved. 
In addition, the Petitioner "asks for a de novo review of the petition" and that we consider "all 
aspects" of the petition and "examine anew" the documentation of record to "re-determine the 
decision in whole and approve" the petition. As explained in our previous decisions, we conducted a 
complete review of the petition and the evidence presented during our analysis of the Petitioner's 
appeal, and we decline to do another de novo review at this time. 
On motion, the Petitioner maintains that he meets the criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), 
(iii), (v), and (viii), but does not explain how our latest findings on those issues were incorrect. 
Other than noting that his petition should be approved because we approved an athlete's petition in a 
January 28, 2015, non-precedent decision, the Petitioner has not identified any error in our 
November 6, 2015, decision, pertaining to the criteria under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
A motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief 
presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision. Cf 
Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). As we have previously reviewed all relevant 
filings in the record and concluded that the Petitioner did not establish his eligibility for the petition, 
we will not again review the evidence in absence of a showing that our previous decision was made 
in error. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we should grant his current motion to reconsider 
as he has not cited to a legal authority or policy showing that we erred in our November 6, 2015 
decision. 
3 
Matter of A-0-R-D-L-
Lastly, the Petitioner requests oral argument to personally explain the issues of his case. The regulation 
at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3(b) allows for oral argument in support of an appeal, but there is no provision in 
the regulations permitting oral argument on motion. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a). Furthermore, the 
requesting party must adequately explain in writing why oral argument is necessary and the 
Petitioner has not done so in this instance. USCIS has the sole authority to grant or deny a request 
for oral argument and will grant argument only in cases involving unique factors or issues of law 
that cannot be adequately addressed in writing. See 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3(b ). In the present matter, the 
Petitioner has identified no unique factors or issues of law to be resolved that cannot be adequately 
addressed in writing. Moreover, the written record of proceedings fully represents the facts and 
issues in this matter. Consequently, the Petitioner's request for oral argument is denied. 
II. CONCLUSION 
As the motion to reconsider is not supported by any pertinent precedent decisions or legal citations that 
demonstrate our latest decision was based on an incorrect application of law or users policy, the 
motion is denied. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for 
the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N 
Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, the Petitioner has not met that burden. Accordingly, the motion 
will be denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-0-R-D-L-, ID# 16610 (AAO May 27, 2016) 
4