dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 24782988 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 22, 2023 
Form 1-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker (Extraordinary Ability- 0) 
The Petitioner, a former professor at Brown Mackie College, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. 
§ l 153(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 Texas Service Center denied the petition in 2012 and dismissed two subsequent 
motions in 2012 and 2013, respectively, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements for this immigrant visa classification. In 2014, we dismissed the Petitioner's 
appeal of the Director's 2013 decision. We have since dismissed thirteen motions filed by the 
Petitioner since 2014 . Most recently , we dismissed his combined motion to reopen and reconsider on 
September 1, 2022 . The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and reconsider our prior 
decision. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review , we will dismiss the motion to reopen and 
reconsider. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 1 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy. 2 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. 
1 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 . INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, (1992) (citing 
INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden. " Id. at 110. 
2 The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) generally provides that a motion to reconsider asserts that at the time of the 
previous decision , an error was made . It questions the decision for alleged errors in appraising the facts and the law. The 
very nature of a motion to reconsider is that the original decision was defective in some regard . See Matter of Cerna, 20 
I&N Dec . 399, 402 (BIA 1991). 
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Therefore, the filing before us is not a motion to reopen and reconsider the denial of the petition. 
Instead, it is a motion to reopen and reconsider our most recent decision, the September 1, 2022 
dismissal of the Petitioner's thirteenth motion. Therefore, we cannot consider new objections to the 
earlier denial, and the Petitioner cannot use the present filing to make new allegations of error at prior 
stages of the proceeding. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a statement generally asserting his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability, but does not explain or point to any factual, legal or policy error in our prior 
decision. The Petitioner states that President Biden's February 2, 2021 fact sheet ("President Biden 
Outlines Steps to Reform Our Immigration System by Keeping Families Together, Addressing the 
Root Causes of Irregular Migration, and Streamlining the Legal Immigration System,") supports 
reopening these proceedings because it outlines the administration's mission to eliminate barriers to 
immigration and to "not let immigrant visas go to waste." Review of the President's fact sheet shows 
that it announced three steps ( create a task force to reunify families; develop a strategy to address 
irregular migration across the southern border and create a humane asylum system; and restore faith 
in our legal immigration system and promote integration of new Americans) however, none of these 
pertain to the issuance of visas to individuals, like the Petitioner, who are self-petitioning as individuals 
of extraordinary ability. 
Next, the Petitioner asserts that three "Special Masters Lawyers" have reviewed his credentials and 
determined that he meets the criteria found at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner does not 
provide any evidence to establish who these "Special Masters Lawyers" are or how they determined 
his credentials were sufficient to establish his eligibility for an extraordinary ability visa. He also 
requests approval of his visa petition because the "loss of available employment-based immigrant 
visas harms employers and foreign nationals." These statements, however, are insufficient to be 
considered new facts. In addition, these assertions do not pertain to any error of law or policy in our 
prior decision. 
The Petitioner also claims eligibility under the second preference visa classification as a member of 
the professions holding an advanced degree or a noncitizen of exceptional ability seeking a national 
interest waiver and requests that we convert his first preference petition to a second preference national 
interest waiver petition. Again, this request neither establishes a new fact nor establishes that our prior 
decision was based on an error of law or policy. Further, we will not entertain a request for a change 
of classification for a petition that has already been adjudicated. A post-adjudication alteration of the 
requested visa classification constitutes a material change. A petitioner may not make material 
changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS 
requirements. See Matter of Izwnmi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 176 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998). 
The Petitioner also cites to chapters 40.9.2(b )(2) and 40.9.2(b )(3) of the Adjudicator's Field Manual 
to assert that he has maintained lawful status in the United States during the pendency of his petition 
and subsequent appeal and motions. As this does not address any of the issues raised in our prior 
decision, or establish a new fact, we will not reopen or reconsider our prior decision on this basis. 
As before, the Petitioner again lists his credentials under the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
However, this recitation of his credentials does not explain or point to any factual, legal or policy error 
2 
in our prior decision. His reference to a social media post by an individual who states he only received 
an elementary school education and request to understand how this individual received an 
extraordinary ability visa, whereas he has seven university degrees, and has been deemed ineligible, 
does not address the basis for our prior decision. As we explained, the fact that he may have seven 
educational degrees is insufficient to establish eligibility unless he establishes how his "academic 
degrees fulfill any specific criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x)." His request for an explanation 
of how someone with less education may have received an immigration benefit is beyond the scope of 
a motion to reopen and reconsider, and does not establish proper cause for granting either motion. 
Finally, we note that the Petitioner has still not addressed our questions surrounding his claimed 
international "Innovare Award" in 2005, as it appears the international version of the award did not 
exist prior to 2010. The Petitioner must resolve this discrepancy in the record with independent, 
objective evidence pointing to where the truth lies. Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 
1988). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, 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. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Therefore, we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to reconsider because he does not establish that we 
erred in our prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). In addition, we will dismiss his motion to 
reopen because he has not provided evidence of new facts related to our prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3