dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Equipment Maintenance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5505808 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 12, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an electrical equipment maintenance and electronic communication specialist, seeks 
classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had a one-time achievement (a major, internationally recognized award) 
or met at least three of the required evidentiary criteria. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and 
we summarily dismissed the appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief and additional evidence and asserts that he has demonstrated 
a one-time achievement and is eligible for the benefit sought. 
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 dismiss the motions to reopen and to 
reconsider. 
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. 
A motion to reconsider must ( 1) state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(3). 
III. ANALYSIS 
As a preliminary matter, we note that the review of any motion is narrowly limited to the basis for the 
prior adverse decision. Although the Petitioner's appellate brief primarily addresses the Director's 
initial denial decision, we emphasize that the Petitioner did not appeal the denial order itself, but rather 
our summary dismissal of its appeal. Therefore, the merits of the denial decision, and of the underlying 
petition, are not before us. Rather, the only issue before us is whether we properly found that the 
Petitioner's appeal met the applicable requirements for summary dismissal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(v). 
In relevant part, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v) provides that an appeal shall be summarily 
dismissed "when the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or 
statement of fact for the appeal." In our decision, we noted that the Petitioner indicated that he would 
submit a brief and/ or additional evidence within 3 0 calendar days of filing the appeal, and that we had 
not received this documentation. We farther stated that the Petitioner's initial filing did "not contain 
a statement that specifically identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the 
unfavorable decision being appealed." 
A. Motion to Reopen 
As we note above, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. On motion, 
the Petitioner includes an appellate brief explaining that he "filed a timely appeal" and acknowledging 
that he "failed to submit additional documentation" with this appeal because he was still "in the 
process" of obtaining "documentation to demonstrates [sic] his eligibility" for the benefit sought. 
He also presents new evidence on motion with reJ?;ar ......... ~~~~-~~~~ ............. enial decision. 
Specifically he submits a letter froml J of.__ _______ ~ _ _._c;;_;o;;..c;n=f=irm=1=·nc=...=h;;;.;;;is 
current employment with that entity, as well as an offer of employment from .__ ______ ____. 
Regarding the matter before us, the Petitioner acknowledges in his appellate brief that he did not 
submit a brief or additional evidence, one of the reasons we provide in our summary dismissal for that 
decision. He does not demonstrate how the aforementioned letters address the stated grounds for 
summary dismissal, and this evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that we were in error. 
Accordingly, while we note that the Petitioner submits new evidence, these materials do demonstrate 
that the Petitioner's appeal identified its legal or factual basis. Therefore we will dismiss this motion. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
On appeal, the Petitioner indicate that he "seeks to file a motion to reconsider USCIS decision based 
on legal grounds, and seeks a new determination based on alleged errors of fact or law." However, he 
does not indicate that our decision to summarily dismiss his appeal was based on an incorrect 
application oflaw or policy or show that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record 
at the time. He therefore has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3), and we will dismiss this motion accordingly. 
2 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider do not establish that our decision to summarily 
dismiss his appeal was legally or factually in error. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3