dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-0-R-D-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 4. 2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a former professor at seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in education. 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 tield through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition and two subsequent motion decisions. 
The Director determined 
that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set 
forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which 
require documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence 
that meets at least three of the 10 regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). We upheld that decision on appeal and reaffirmed our findings in six 
subsequent motion decisions .1 
The matter is now before us on a seventh motion, a joint motion to reopen and reconsider. In his 
current motion, the Petitioner maintains that has received a lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes for excellence and made original contributions to the field. 
Upon review, we will deny both motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts , and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
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). A petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
1 
Our most recent decision in this matter is Matter of A-0-R-D-L-, ID# 331324 (AAO Mar. 24, 20 17). 
Matter of A-0-R-D-L-
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 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. 2 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our previous decision denying his sixth motion, we determined that the Petitioner did not state any 
new facts and his evidence did not overcome the grounds of denial from our prior decision. 
Specifically, we found that the Petitioner's argument that we misapplied or misinterpreted the law 
did not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 3 In addition, we denied the Petitioner's 
request for oral argument, noting that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has sole authority 
to grant or deny such a request, and the Petitioner did not identify any unique factors or issues of law 
that cannot be adequately addressed in writing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). 
In his current motion, the Petitioner maintains that has received a lesser nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes for excellence and made original contributions to the field, but he does not explain 
how our most recent findings on those issues were incorrect. He also provides additional evidence. 
which we address below. 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a "new" 
fact, nor does it mirror the Board of Immigration Appeals' definition of ''new" at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1003 .23(b )(3) (stating that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence "was not 
available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing"). Unlike the Board 
regulation, we do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or 
undiscoverable. Instead, we interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue( s) 
raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the 
1 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. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. 
Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe. 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding 
that the ''truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality"" and that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to detennine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true'"). 
5 The Petitioner referenced court cases without explaining how they relate to issues in our prior decision(s). 
2 
.
Matter of A-0-R-D-L-
original petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence 
does not constitute "new facts." 
The Petitioner states in the introductory portion of his brief that he is providing ''documentary 
evidence of new facts." He provides evidence consisting of excerpts from a number of website 
addresses, all of which appear to originate from which translated foreign 
language materials from other websites. The Petitioner has not submitted the foreign language 
materials or their English translations that meet the regulatory requirements under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.2(b)(3). Because the Petitioner did not submit a properly certified English language 
translation of the documents, we cannot meaningfully determine whether the translated material is 
accurate and thus supports the Petitioner's claims. Regardless, the ofTered evidence does not appear 
to overcome our previous determinations or establish eligibility for the benefit sought. The motion 
to reopen will be denied. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
In his motion to reconsider, the Petitioner asserts that our appellate decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy, and that his previously submitted evidence established 
eligibility. The arguments the Petitioner otTers on motion, however, do not establish that our 
previous findings were based on an incorrect application of the law, regulation, or USCIS policy, nor 
does the motion demonstrate that our latest decision was erroneous based on the evidence before us 
at the time of the decision. 
In addition, the Petitioner summarizes his documentary evidence for the regulatory criteria and 
requests that we review his documentation again. A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect 
application law or policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A request to reanalyze documentation without 
showing how we incorrectly applied law or policy does not meet the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider. Moreover, as discussed in our previous decisions, we thoroughly analyzed the 
Petitioner's documentation and concluded that he only met two of the regulatory criteria. of which 
he must meet at least three. 
III. CONCLUSION 
In this matter, the evidence provided in support of the motion to reopen does not overcome the 
grounds underlying our previous decision. and 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 USC IS policy. Therefore, the motions are denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter<~( A-0-R-D-L- ID# 592759 (AAO Oct. 4, 2017) 
3