dismissed EB-1A Case: Financial Management

(b)(6)
Date: 
MAY 0 8 2015 
IN RE: 
APPLICATION: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
U.S. 1>epartment of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(A). 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
;3y7J-r 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition on January 26, 2012. The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which the director dismissed 
on December 4, 2012. The petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which the director dismissed on 
September 20, 2013. On July 25, 2014, we dismissed the petitioner's appeal, fmding that he did not 
establish his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. On December 15, 2014, we dismissed 
the petitioner's motion to reconsider. The matter is now before us on a second motion to reconsider. 
We will dismiss the motion. 
I. Motion to Reopen and Reconsider 
In Part 3 of his Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I-290B, the petitioner indicates that he is filing a 
motion to reconsider. In support of his motion, the petitioner has submitted documents that were not 
previously in the record. 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that our original decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider is based on the existing record 
and the petitioner may not introduce new facts or new evidence relative to his or her arguments. In 
addition, a motion to reconsider 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 in the prior decision. 
Matter of 0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). A motion to reconsider contests the correctness 
of the original decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which 
seeks a new hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. Compare 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Accordingly, a motion to reconsider is not the proper 
filing 
·
to request consideration of new evidence. The legal authorities on which the petitioner relies 
relate to the standard of proof. While the petitioner is correct that the appropriate standard is 
preponderance of the evidence, that standard does not relieve the petitioner from satisfying the basic 
evidentiary requirements set by regulation . . Matter of Chawathe, 25 I. & N. Dec. 369, 375, n.7 
(AAO 2010). Where the regulations require specific evidence, the petitioner is required to submit 
that evidence. /d. The general immigration policies the petitioner references relate to the benefits of 
allowing bright individuals to immigrate and do not relate specifically to the classification the 
petitioner seeks. 
Even if we considered the petitioner's motion, which includes the submission of new evidence, as a 
motion to reopen in addition to a motion to reconsider, the petitioner's new evidence either does not 
relate to the petitioner's eligibility as of the date of filing or is not persuasive for the reasons 
discussed below. A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a heavy burden and "must state the 
new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) "has some latitude in deciding when to reopen a case. [USCIS] should have the 
right to be restrictive. Granting such motions too freely will permit endless delay of deportation by 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously produce new and material facts sufficient to 
establish a prima facie case." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988). The result also needlessly 
wastes the time and efforts of the triers of fact who must attend to the filing requests. !d. 
On motion, the petitioner has not shown that we should grant a motion to reconsider or, in the 
alternative, a motion to reopen. The petitioner has asked us to "review [his] entire record for the 
approval of [the] I-140 [petition]." The petitioner, however, has not shown through citation to legal 
authority or policy that we erred in our December 15, 2014 decision; nor has he submitted additional 
evidence that establishes his eligibility for the exclusive classification sought. On motion, as relating 
to the prizes and awards criterion, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the petitioner has provided a list of his 
accomplishments. Between our July 25, 2014 decision and our December 15, 2014 decision, we 
discussed six of the eight listed accomplishments and found that they do not constitute 
internationally or nationally recognized prizes or award for excellence in the field. On motion, the 
petitioner has not asserted or shown that we erred in our previous findings as relating to these 
accomplishments. The remaining two accomplishments relate to the petitioner's selection as an 
_ . 
testimonial survey 
winner and the Both events occurred after the petitioner filed the petition 
in December 2011. They therefore do not establish the petitioner's eligibility for the exclusive 
classification or that we erred in our previous decisions. It is well established that the petitioner 
must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.2(b )(1), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Cornm'r 1971). In other words, the petitioner 
cannot secure a priority date based on the anticipation of future citations at a level consistent with 
contributions of major significance. See Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. 158, 160 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1977); Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175-76 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (adopting 
Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981) for the proposition that US CIS cannot "consider 
facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition.") 
Moreover, the petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that an testimonial survey win 
is recognized on an international or national level or that it is a prize or award in the field(s) in which 
the petitioner asserts he has extraordinary ability. Specifically, the evidence reflects only that the 
petitioner submitted a testimonial that he generated savings using public financial management tools 
about which he learned at an conference and that : plans to use the testimonial for its 
own marketing purposes. Furthermore, the evidence the petitioner has submitted relating to " 
. " consists of a 2015 email that makes no reference to the petitioner's receipt of any 
prize or award. Rather, the body of the email appears to be a summary of an article translated 
through Google Translate, translate.google.com. Such a translation does not comply with 8 C.F. R 
§ 102.3(b)(3), which requires complete certified translations. Accordingly, as relating to this 
criterion, the petitioner has not shown that a motion to reopen or reconsider is warranted. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3). 
On motion, as relating to the membership in associations criterion, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the 
petitioner has provided a list of seven organizations, asserting that he is a member of each 
organization. Between our July 25, 2014 decision and our December 15, 2014 decision, we 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
discussed five of the seven listed organizations and found that those memberships do not constitute 
associations that require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized 
national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. The petitioner has not cited any legal 
authority or policy demonstrating that we erred in our previous findings as relating to these 
associations. The remaining two listed associations are the and the 
. The petitioner has not submitted evidence showing that he is an member. On 
motion, he has submitted a Certificate of Attendance, verifying his attendance to a conference. The 
certificate does not demonstrate the petitioner's membership in the organization. In additio�, the 
petitioner has not submitted evidence relating to membership requirements, or evidence 
showing that the organization requires outstanding achievements of its members. 
Moreover, although on motion the petitioner has submitted evidence demonstrating his membership 
�� � 
_ , the petitioner has not submitted any evidence showing that any of 
these associations requires outstanding achievements of its members, or evidence that an applicant's 
qualifications for membership are judged by recognized national or international experts, as required 
by the plain language of the criterion. Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not 
shown that a motion to reopen or reconsider is warranted. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3). 
On motion, as relating to the published material criterion, 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), the petitioner 
has submitted an online printout relating to . stating that ' is the Brazilian 
newspaper with the largest printing and circulation among national dailies of general interest." The 
printout also includes the publication's circulation information for" [sic] /2012." The self­
promotional assertions comparing the publication with others have minimal evidentiary value. See 
Braga v. Poulos, No. CV 06-5105 SJO 10, 2007 WL 9229758, at *1, 6-7 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2007), 
aff'd, 317 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that we did not have to rely on the promotional 
assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status as major media). Although the 
online printout indicates that in 2012, the publication's paid circulation numbers were 
321,535 copies on Sundays and 297,927 copies on weekdays, the petitioner has not shown that the 
edition constitutes major media in that it enjoys a national distribution. 
Regardless, as discussed in our December 15, 2014 decision, denying the petitioner's first motion, 
we concluded that the petitioner did not show that has published material about 
him, as the petitioner did not submit a copy of the 1999 published material, along with a complete 
certified translation that meets the requirements at 8 C.F.R § 103.2(b)(3). Rather, the petitioner 
provided a website address for the published material. As noted in our previous decision, we 
nonetheless accessed the website and found that the article is about a new accounting examination 
and quotes the petitioner as a member of the 
_ 
discussing the purpose of 
the examination. We concluded that the published material is not about the petitioner. Similarly, we 
concluded in our previous decision that the material is not 
about the petitioner, because it is a question and answer piece about the impact of the change in 
Brazilian currency that mentions the petitioner's name only in the introduction and a photograph 
caption identifying him as one "who failed to submit the form via the Internet." On motion, the 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
PageS 
petitioner has not submitted any additional evidence establishing that he meets this criterion or cited 
a legal authority or USCIS policy demonstrating that we erred in our previous decisions as relating 
to this criterion. Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown that a motion 
to reopen or reconsider is warranted. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3). 
On motion, as relating to the original contributions of major significance criterion, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v), the petitioner has submitted copies of Google search results and a November 19, 
1999 letter from President of As discussed in our 
December 15, 2014 decision, denying the petitioner's first motion, Google search results do not 
establish an individual's impact in the field. As noted in our decision, the petitioner has not 
demonstrated the relevance of the Google search results because a Google search includes results 
that mention the petitioner's name without providing information relating to the nature of the 
reference. We concluded that Google search results, without evidence that the search results relate 
to the petitioner's original contributions of major significance in the field, are insufficient to show 
the petitioner meets this criterion. On motion, the petitioner has not shown through citation of any 
legal authority or policy that we erred in our findings. Moreover, the purpose of the 1999 letter from 
Ms. was to coordinate with the petitioner on the publication of his presentation at an 
conference. The letter does not confirm the actual publication of the petitioner's presentation. More 
importantly, the letter does not provide information relating to the petitioner or his presentation's 
impact in the field, or demonstrate that the impact is at a level consistent with contributions of major 
significance in the field. Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has not shown that a 
motion to reopen or reconsider is warranted. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3). 
On motion, as relating to the leading and critical role criterion, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the 
petitioner has submitted a list of organizations or establishments, in which he asserts he has 
performed either a leading or critical role. The petitioner, however, does not state on motion that we 
erred in our previous decisions as relating to this criterion or provide a legal authority or policy that 
demonstrates a legal error in our previous decision. In support of this motion, the petitioner submits 
a November 23, 1999 letter from National President, 
a September 15, 1993 letter from Vice President of 
Operations at the ; the petitioner's resume; a document entitled '' 
'; a January 2015 email to and from 
a :; a 
attendee credential; and a 
completion certificate. 
First, we have considered two pieces of the evidence in our previous decisions. Specifically, in our 
July 25, 2014 decision, dismissing the petitioner's appeal, we discussed the 1999 letter from Mr. 
, finding that it did not establish the petitioner meets the original contributions of major 
significance criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). The letter also does not establish that the 
petitioner has met the leading and critical role criterion under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
Specifically, the letter establishes that the petitioner presented at the 
� 
and received positive responses for his presentation. The letter, however, does not 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 6 
state what role, if any, the petitioner performed for the Board of Directors of the 
the organizer of the event, or for any organizations or establishments. The letter 
is therefore not sufficient to show that the petitioner meets this criterion. In addition, in our 
December 15, 2014 decision, dismissing the petitioner's first motion, we discussed the 1993 letter 
from Mr. finding that it did not establish the petitioner meets the leading and critical role 
criterion. On motion, the petitioner has not shown through any legal authority or policy that we 
erred in our findings as relating these two pieces of evidence. 
Second, although on motion, the petitioner has submitted additional evidence, he has not shown that 
the additional evidence establishes that he meets the leading and critical role criterion. The 
additional evidence shows the petitioner's participation in a number of events. The petitioner, 
however, has not shown that mere participation constitutes performing either a leading or critical 
role for any organizations or establishments. 
Third, evidence that postdates the filing of the petition in December 2011, specifically a January 
2015 email and a 2014 completion certificate, does not establish the petitioner's eligibility. 
As noted, the petitioner must demonstrate eligibility for the visa petition at the time of filing, and 
may not rely on events that postdate his filing to establish his eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), 
(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49; Matter of Wing's Tea House, 16 I&N Dec. at 160; 
Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. at 175-76. 
Finally, the petitioner's resume constitutes his unsubstantiated assertions, which are not evidence 
establishing his eligibility. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not 
sufficient for the purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 
22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Assoc. Comm'r 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 
I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 1972)). Accordingly, as relating to this criterion, the petitioner has 
not shown that a motion to reopen or reconsider is warranted. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), (3). 
II. Conclusion 
The petitioner indicated that he was filing a motion to reconsider. The petitioner has not shown that 
the motion to reconsider should be granted, because he has not stated any valid reason for 
reconsideration, nor has he sufficiently supported any valid reason for reconsideration with pertinent 
legal precedent or other legal authority establishing that our December 15, 2014 decision was based on 
an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy. See 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Accordingly, the instant 
motion to reconsider will be dismissed. Even if we considered the filing as a motion to reopen, the 
petitioner has not shown that the new evidence demonstrates his eligibility for the classification at 
the time of filing. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed. 
(b)(6)