dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF C-G-C-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT.18,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a Spanish language specialist and teacher, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in education. See Immigration and Nationality Act section 203(b )(1 )(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 and we dismissed the subsequent 
appeal. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the 
motion. 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must deny a motion that does not satisfy 
applicable requirements. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). A motion to reopen must state new facts to be 
provided in the reopened proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must state the 
reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent decisions to establish that the decision 
was based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion "is 
not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal and seek 
reconsideration by generally alleging error." Matter ofO-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). 
The Petitioner submits two letters in support of the motion. The first letter acknowledges that 
"[t]here is no new fact or evidence" submitted in support of the motion and instead requests us to 
reconsider the appeal. The second letter is a narrative regarding the Petitioner's achievements and 
experience. The letter does not specify a law or USCIS policy, or state that our appeal dismissal 
decision was based on an incorrect application of such a law or policy. 
Accordingly, we must deny the motion because it does not satisfy applicable requirements for a 
motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2)-(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter ofC-G-C-, ID# 950355 (AAO Oct. 18, 2017)