dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

(b)(6)
? 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration, 
Services 
MATTER OF A-0-R-D-L-
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 18,2016 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a former professor at the 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 field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition and two subsequent motions. The 
Petitioner appealed the matter to us. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, and reaffirmed that 
decision in four motion adjudications. The matter is now before us on a fifth motion to reopen. We 
will deny the motion. ~ 
I. ANALYSIS 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The Petitioner contends that he "included in all [of 
his] petitions, more evidence than was asked," and we never requested additional evidence or 
afforded him the opportunity to "explain personally" his situation at our office. The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(8) does not require us to request additional documentation. Rather, the regulation 
allows for discretion to deny, request additional information or evidence, or notify the petitioner of 
our intention to deny. In this case, the Petitioner has had multiple opportunities to submit 
documentation, including at the initial filing of his petition, in response to the Director's request for 
evidence, with the two motions filed before the Director, on appeal, and with the five motions filed 
before us. Furthermore, our previous decisions thoroughly discussed the reasons for our denials and 
informed the Petitioner of the deficiencies in the record. Accordingly, we will not issue a request for 
evidence in response to his filing of this motion. 
In addition, as discussed in our most recent decision, the regulation at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .3(b) allows for 
oral argument in support of an appeal, but there is no provision in the regulations permitting oral 
argument on motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a). Further, the requesting party must adequately explain 
in writing why oral argument is necessary. Here, the Petitioner has not identified any unique factors 
or issues of law to be resolved that cannot be adequately addressed in writing. Moreover, the written 
record of proceedings fully represents the facts and issues in this matter. We have sole authority to 
Matter of A-0-R-D-L-
grant or deny a request for oral argument. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). For these reasons, we will not 
grant the Petitioner's request for oral argument. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits an inquiry response from the Office of the Citizenship and 
Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman). Specifically, the CIS Ombudsman informed 
the Petitioner that his prior motion was pending with us, and that it did not have jurisdiction. 1 The 
Petitioner contends that three of his Forms I-290B, Notice of' Appeal or Motion, are still waiting 
adjudication from us "for years." The record of proceedings indicates that two of his motions related 
to the Director's denial of his lawful permanent resident application, over which we do not have 
jurisdiction. The third identified Form I-290B relates to the Petitioner's original appeal, which we 
dismissed in July 2014. Regardless, the CIS Ombudsman's inquiry response does not demonstrate 
the Petitioner's eligibility for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
II. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not stated any new facts, and the evidence does not overcome the grounds of 
denial from our latest decision, the motion is denied. The Petitioner has met its burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter of A-0-R-D-L-, ID# 14034 (AAO Oct. 18, 2016) 
1 Wf1 issued our decision on the prior motion approximately three weeks after the CIS Ombudsman's response. 
2