dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

(b)(6)
DATE: 
MAY 0 5 2015 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to Section 
203(b )(1 )(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 l-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:ljwww.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. 
;;z�--
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 18, 2013. On June 21, 2013, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) upheld 
the director's decision, and dismissed the appeal. On November 29, 2013, we granted the 
subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider, but affirmed the decision after a full review on the 
merits. The petitioner filed a second motion, which we dismissed on June 25, 2014, also addressing 
the merits. The petitioner subsequently submitted a third motion, which we dismissed on October 
15, 2014. The petitioner filed a fourth motion on November 17, 2014, which we dismissed on 
February 18, 2015. The matter is now before us on a fifth motion.1 The current motion is a motion to 
reopen and a motion to reconsider. We will grant the motion to reopen and reaffirm our prior 
determinations regarding the petitioner's eligibility, and dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
According to part 6 of the Form I -140, the petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary 
ability" as a lawyer, pursuant to section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A), which makes visas available to aliens who can demonstrate their 
extraordinary ability through s�stained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have 
been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. The director determined that the 
petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3), which 
requires documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In our initial June 21, 2013 decision, we agreed with the director that the petitiOner had not 
submitted evidence that satisfied at least three of the regulatory criteria. We also raised a concern 
regarding whether the petitioner intended to work in one of the statutorily defined fields, sciences, 
arts, education, business or athletics. In our November 29, 2013 decision, we addressed both issues 
on the merits and concluded that the petitioner had not resolved the issue of his intended 
employment and had not established that he has a one-time achievement or meets at least three of the 
regulatory criteria. In our June 25, 2014 decision, we once again addressed the merits of the 
petitioner's eligibility, concluding that he had not demonstrated that he has a one-time achievement 
or that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria. In our October 15, 2014 decision, we 
concluded that, even considering the new evidence relating to some of the criteria, the petitioner had 
not demonstrated that he meets at least three of the regulatory criteria. In our February 18, 2015 
decision, we concluded that the new evidence addressed only the issue of the petitioner's intended 
area of employment, and that he had thus abandoned the issue of whether he satisfies at least three of 
the regulatory criteria. 
1 The record contains a pending Form 1-140 petition, receipt number which the petitioner 
filed on January 22, 2013. As the record has remained with the AAO to adjudicate the motions on the 
petitioner's previous petition, the director has not had an opportunity to review the newer petition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
I. MOTION TO RECONSIDER 
Within the present motion, the petitioner correctly notes that we determined he satisfied the judging 
criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) within our June 21, 2013, decision. He also identifies a 
typographical error within our February 18, 2015, decision in which we stated within the "order" 
section that the "decision of the AAO dated July 2, 2012, is affirmed, and the petition remains 
denied." In fact, we should have stated that our decision dated October 15, 2014, was affirmed. 
However, the date of our most recent decision as stated in the order section was not material to the 
beneficiary's eligibility. Notably, the text of the decision itself included the correct dates for every 
prior decision by the director and us. It is not enough to demonstrate errors in an agency's decision. 
The petitioner must also establish that the errors prejudiced him. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 
1115, 1119, 1122 (91h Cir. 2010). The petitioner has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by our 
inclusion of an erroneous date in the order section, especially as all of the dates in the text of the 
decision were correct. Nevertheless, as we are reopening the matter for the reasons discussed below, 
we amend the order of our previous decision to include the correct date, October 15, 2014. 
The petitioner further asserts that we incorrect! y applied the law and agency policy in our February 
18, 2015 decision because we did not reopen the matter due to the fact that he did not address the 
elements within the October 15, 2014 decision. The petitioner states that we had no basis to limit the 
initial discussion within the decision on his fourth motion as we did not cite to any statute, regulation 
or precedent decision to support this determination. The regulation at 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(1)(i) 
requires the petitioner to file a motion to reopen "within 30 days of the decision that the motion 
seeks to reopen," suggesting that while 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(2) discusses the "reopened proceeding," 
there is some focus on the most recent decision. Regardless, a motion to reopen must also "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). Nothing in this provision suggests that we are 
obligated to reopen a decision and render a new decision that considers the entire record anew where 
the new facts on motion address only one of the bases of ineligibility and we have previously 
addressed the merits in earlier decisions. The petitioner's citations to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and 
Tongatapu Woodcraft Hawaii, Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1984) relate to the 
standard of review of agency decisions in federal court. While these authorities confirm that the 
standard is abuse of discretion, they do not address whether it is an abuse of discretion to not 
reevaluate the record anew on issues that we addressed in previous decisions and for which the 
petitioner provided no new facts. 
In addition, the petitioner cites to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), as well as to the AAO 
Practice Manual relating to motion filing requirements. Regarding his November 17, 2014 motion, 
the petitioner now asserts that as he addressed a single issue out of a total of six issues raised in our 
October 15, 2014 decision, we should have granted the motion and entered a separate conclusion 
based on another review on the merits of his original petition. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
As stated in our February 18, 2014 decision, motions for the reopening of immigration proceedings 
are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the 
basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 
485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988)); see also Selimi v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 736, 739 (7th Cir. 2004). "There is a 
strong public interest in bringing litigation to a close as promptly as is consistent with the interest in 
giving the adversaries a fair opportunity to develop and present their respective cases." INS v. 
Abudu, 485 at 107. Based on its discretion, "[T]he [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 aliens creative and fertile enough to continuously 
produce new and material facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case." Jd. at 108. The result also 
needlessly wastes the time and efforts of the triers of fact who must attend to the filing requests. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not provided a legal authority demonstrating that our February 18, 
2015 decision made an error of law by not reopening to consider the entire record anew based on 
new evidence that addressed only one of several issues we had raised previously. 
Finally, the petitioner questions the precedential value of Sepulveda v. US Att 'y Gen., 401 F.3d 
1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir.2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-2731, 2011 WL 4711885 at *9 (E.D. 
N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) for the proposition that a petitioner abandons claims not raised before an 
appellate authority. The petitioner indicates that the respective courts do not exercise jurisdiction 
over his case, and we were, therefore, incorrect in citing to these decisions. The petitioner also 
identifies a portion of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' Adjudicator's Field Manual to 
support his position. Although, the petitioner is correct in stating that the cited courts do not directly 
hold jurisdiction over his residence, the procedural fact patterns between his case and the cited cases 
are sufficiently similar that we find the reasoning in those decisions persuasive? Accordingly, the 
petitioner has not provided a legal authority to demonstrate that we erred in citing these cases as 
persuasive authority. 
A motion to reconsider "must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
Service policy." 8 C.F.R § 103.5(a)(3). For the reasons discussed above, the legal authorities the 
petitioner cites in his current motion do not establish that our February 18, 2015, decision was based 
on an incorrect application of law or policy. Accordingly, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
II. MOTION TO REOPEN 
We will grant the petitioner's motion to reopen for purposes of amending the date in the order of our 
previous decision and to consider the new evidence the petitioner submitted with his current motion. 
The order of our February 18, 2015, decision is hereby amended to reaffirm our prior decision of 
2 We cited those decisions with a "Cf." signal, indicating that they support a sufficiently analogous 
propo sitio n. The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation 55 (Colum bia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds., 19th 
ed. 2010.) 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
October 15, 2014. The new evidence with the current motion confirms that the petitioner is 
currently an additional representative to the which 
is in consultative status with the We have previously 
acknowledged that the petitioner has performed a role for this association. The new evidence does 
not address our previous concerns that the petitioner has not submitted evidence regarding the 
significance of his role with the association. As we have addressed all of the evidence of record 
relating to the regulatory criteria in previous decisions, and we find persuasive the authority cited 
above that the petitioner's decision not to address the regulatory criteria in his November 17, 2014 
motion effectively abandoned the issue of whether he has satisfied at least three of the initial 
evidentiary requirements at 8 C.F.R § 204.5 (h)(3), we will not address those criteria further in this 
decision. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's 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). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. The motion to reopen is granted. The decision 
of the AAO dated February 18, 2015, is affirmed as amended by this decision, and the 
petition remains denied.