dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration . 
Services 
MATTER OF A-O-R-D-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DA TE: FEB. 4, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a former professor at Brown Mackie College, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in education. 1 See Immigration and Nationality Act· (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas 
available to those who can den1onstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized iii their field through extensive 
·documentation .. 
. The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition in 2012 and two subsequent motions in 
2012 and 2013, respectively, concluding 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 ten regulatory criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In 2014, we upheld the Director's 2013 decision, and subsequently reaffirmed 
our findings in eight motion decisions between 2014 and 2018. 2 
The matter is now before us on motion for the ninth time. The Petitioner has filed combined 
motions to reconsider and reopen, asserting that we should approve his petition because "the 
favorable factors in the case outweighed the unfavorable factors." He further alleges that he has 
shown he satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria, because in addition to having 
. previously established the judging and scholarly articles criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and 
(vi), he claims that he has demonstrated his "receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor," under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motions to reconsider and reopen. 3 
1 On page 3 of his petition, the Petitioner indicated that upon the approval of the petition, he would work as a "professor 
of li;iw and economics" in the United States. 
2 Our most recent decision in this matter is Matter ofA-O-R-D-l-, ID# 1083126 (AAO Mar. 5, 2018). 
3 With his motion, the Petitioner asserts that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has failed to adjudicate 
five Forms 1-2908 filed between 2012 and 2017. Review of USCIS records shows that all of the receipt numbers 
provided have been adjudicated, either by the AAO or the Director. 
Matter of A-O-R-D-L-
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
· is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements oJ a motion to reconsider are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANAL YSis· 
A. Motion to Reconsider · · 
. . . 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we erred in our last decision, because we concluded that his 
"Innovare Award" and "Honor to Accounting Merit" did not qualify as nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence, under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). He further claims that 
he has received three nationally recognized awards that also satisfy the criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we erred in our previous decision. In his. initial filing in 
support' of his petition, the Petitioner submitted a 200 I . c~rtificate, indicating that he received a 
"Diploma of Merit" for "relevant and good professional services rendered to the accounting 
profession and society." As discussed in our 2014. decision dismissing the appeal, as well as in our 
subsequent motion decision, 4 the Petitioner has not submitted credible and sufficient evidence 
confirming that this certificate, issued by a regional authority, constitutes either a nationally or 
internationaUy recognized prize or award in the field of education ... 
In addition, while the Director concluded in his 2012 decision that the Petitioner's "Innovare 
Award" qualified as a nationally rec~gnized award, the record does n·ot support this finding. A 2011 
certificate indicates that the Petitioner "won the Prize Innovare 2005 in the category Single Judge by 
practicing Reconciliation of First Degree." Although the record includes a photograph, purportedly 
depicting his attendance at the award ceremony, and online p_rintouts about the award jssuing entity -
Institute Innovare - as well as its Inno.vare International Awards, the Petitioner has not shown that 
his 2005 award is nationally or internationally recognized. As discussed in our 2014 decision 
dismissing the appeal, as well as in our subsequent motion decisions, the Petitioner has not 
established that his 2005 award was an Innovare International Award, which, according to 
documents in the record, did not exist before 20 I 0. Additionally, the record lacks sufficient 
evidence, such as materials from publications or news outlets with a national or international 
readership or viewership base, confirming· that the Petitioner's "Prize Innovare 2005" enjoys 
recognition on a national or international level in the field of education. 
4 Specifically, in our 2014 and 2015 motion decisions, we again explained the bases upon which we concluded thatthe 
"Diploma of Merits," which the Petitioner references as "Honor to Accounting Merit," does not m·eet-the criterion under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) .. 
2. 
Matter of A-O-R-D-L-
Moreover, as discussed in our 2014 decision, the Petitioner did not initially assert on appeal that his 
other awards and prizes, which he now claims to be nationally recognized, were qualifying under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Furthermore, as we explained in our 2014 decision, the record shows that 
these accolades are local or regional in scope, and are not recognized nationally or internationally. 
The Petitioner's conclusory statements that he satisfies the "nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards" criterion under 8 C.F.R. §. 204.5(h)(3 )(i) and his repeating of arguments he 
previously made in support of appeal and motions do not meet the requirements for a motion to 
reconsider the matter. He has not established that our most recent decision, dated March 2018, was 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that it was incorrect based on the evidence in 
the record of proceedings atthe time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We will therefore 
deny his motion to reconsider the matter. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
We will similarly deny the Petitioner's motion to reopen the matter. As noted, a motion to reopen 
must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). On 
motion, the Petitioner has not presented either new facts or new evidence in support of his eligibility 
for the classification. As such, he has not satisfied the requirements for a motion to reopen. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not demonstrate that our previous decision was based on 
an incorrect application of law or policy, or was incorrect based on the· evidence in the record at the 
time. In addition, he has not provided documentation in support of his motion to reopen or 
established eligibility for the classification. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-O-R-D-L-, ID# 1574437 (AAO Feb. 4, 2019) 
3