dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5268827 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : FEB. 12, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petitioner for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , a former professor at I !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 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 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 nine motion decisions between 2014 and 2019. 2 
The matter is now before us on motion for the tenth 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). 
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 deny the combined motions to 
reconsider and reopen. 
1 On page 3 of his petition, the Petitioner indicated that upon the approval of the petition, he would work as a "professor 
of law and economics" in the United States. 
2 Our most recent decision in this matter is Matter of A-O-R-D-L-, ID# 1574437 (AAO Feb. 4, 2019). 
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 of a motion to reconsider are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(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. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we erred in our last decision because we did not follow the plain 
language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), relating to nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. Specifically, he argues that "all 
the [five] international awards" meet the regulatory criterion. Moreover, he claims that we "entirely 
forgot in the decision about these five awards." 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we erred in our previous decision. The record reflects that 
we addressed all of his claimed awards in our prior decision denying his motions. Specifically, we 
informed the Petitioner in numerous decisions, including our most recent one, that he did not submit 
credible and sufficient evidence confirming that his 2001 "Diploma of Merit," issued by a regional 
authority, constituted a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in the 
field of education. 
Furthermore, we explained that the Petitioner did not present evidence demonstrating that his 
"Innovare Award" enjoyed recognition on a national or international level in the field of education. 
In addition, the Petitioner did not address our finding that even though he claimed to have received 
the "Innovare Award" in 2005, the record did not show that is existed prior to 2010. 
Moreover, we indicated that he did not initially assert on appeal that his other awards and prizes, which 
he now claimed to be nationally recognized, were qualifying under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). Further, as we explained in our 2014 decision, the record did not show that his local 
or regional accolades were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence in the field. 
In the case here, the Petitioner's conclusory statements and previously made arguments do not meet 
the regulatory requirements for a motion to reconsider. He has not demonstrated that we incorrectly 
applied law or policy in our latest decision, dated February 4, 2019, or that we erroneously adjudicated 
the benefit based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). Moreover, the Petitioner did not show that any of his prizes or awards qualify under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). We will therefore deny his motion to reconsider. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
We will similarly deny the Petitioner's motion to reopen the matter. On motion, the Petitioner argues 
that he received incorrect correspondence from us informing him that we do not have a record of a 
2 
pending appeal with our office. Moreover, he requests that we inform the Director that he has a 
pending appeal in order to maintain his pending status relating to his Form I-485, Application to 
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. The Petitioner submits copies of our November 2018 
correspondence and the Director's October 2018 decision dismissing his motion to reconsider 
regarding the denial of his Form I-485. 
As noted, a motion to reopen must state new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
how his evidence relates to our prior decision denying his most recent motion filing. 3 Moreover, the 
Petitioner did not show how the correspondence and the Form I-485 decision establish his eligibility 
as an individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l)(A) of Act. 
As he has not presented either new facts or new evidence in support of his eligibility for extraordinary 
ability classification, he has not satisfied the requirements for a motion to reopen. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we incorrectly denied his most recent motions based on the record 
before us, nor does his new evidence on motion demonstrate that he has fulfilled at least three of the 
evidentiary criteria. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
3 Although the Petitioner asseits that our correspondence was incorrect, the record does not support his claim. Rather, the 
record reflects that the only appeal filed by the Petitioner was on October 7, 2013, which we dismissed on July 25, 2014. 
In addition, as we have no jurisdiction, any issues relating to his Form 1-485 should be addressed in a separate proceeding 
to the Director. 
3