dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

.
MATTER OF A-0-R-D-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE : MAR. 5, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIV E APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140 , IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a former professor seeks classification as an indiv idual of 
extraordinary ability in education. 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 
interna tional acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Texa s Service Center denied the petition and two subsequent motion decisions , 
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 10 regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)(-(x). We upheld the decision on 
appeal and reaffirmed our findings in seven subsequent motion decisions. 1 
The matter is now before us on an eighth motion, a motion to reopen. On motion, the Petitioner 
asserts that the evidence in the record demonstrates that he meets the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) in addition to the judging and scholarly articles criteria that had previously been 
established. 
Upon de novo review , we will deny the motion to reopen . 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. 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. 
Section 203(b )( 1 )(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinar y ability. The 
term "ex traordinary 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 a 
1 
Our most recent decision in this matter is Matter of A-0-R-D-L-, ID# 592759 (AAO Oct. 4. 20 17) 
.
Matter of A-0-R-D-L-
one-time achievement (that is a major, internationally recognized award) . Alternatively , he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, memberships, and published material 
in certain media). Where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we 
will 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 
endea vor. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our previous decision denying his seventh motion , we held that the evidence the Petitioner 
submitted did not include properly certified English translations under 8 C.F.R . § l 03.2(b)(3). We 
further held that independent of the issue regarding the translation of these documents , this evidence 
did not establish the Petitioner's eligibility for the benefit sought. On Motion , the Petitioner states 
that his internationally recognized prizes for excellence demonstrate the he meets the awards 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. 
§ I 03.5(a)(2) . The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a "new" 
fact, nor does it mirror the Board of Immigration Appeals' (the Board) 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 previousl y 
unavailable or undiscoverable . Instead , we interpret "new facts" to mean ones that are relevant to 
the issue(s) raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding , which 
includes the original petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously 
provided evidence does not constitute "new facts ." 
On motion , the Petitioner submits the diploma of merit 
and a letter 
, thanking the Petitioner for his work over the 
past eight years. The Petitioner had previously submitted these documents and therefore, they do not 
con stitute new facts under 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2). Accordingly , the Petitioner has not met the filing 
requirements for a motion to reopen . 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not submitted new evidence and , therefore, has not satisfied the requirements of a 
motion to reopen . 
2 
Matter of A-0-R-D-L-
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter (Jf A-0-R-D-L-, ID# 1083126 (AAO Mar. 5, 2018) 
3