dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

(b)(6)
DATE: FEB 1 8 2015 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
IN RE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
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)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(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, tiling location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
��-
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 we dismissed on October 15, 2014, 
once again addressing the merits to some degree. The matter is now before us on a fourth motion. 
The current motion is a motion to reopen. We will dismiss the motion. 
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 sustained 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. Specifically, the petitioner has not submitted qualifying evidence of a one-time 
achievement pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence that satisfies at least three of the ten 
regulatory criteria set forth in the regulations at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In our appellate 
decision and in all three motion decisions, irrespective of the petitioner's proposed occupation, the 
AAO considered whether the petitioner had met any of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R 
§ 204.5(h)(3), and concluded he had not satisfied any of them. 
"A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided in the reopened proceeding and be 
supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence." 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Our analysis 
within this motion is limited to the issues contained in the most recent decision, the decision on the 
motion to reopen dated October 15, 2014. Furthermore, the petitioner's motion to reopen must 
present new facts supported by evidence. We discussed the following issues in the October 15, 2014 
decision that the petitioner must address within this motion: 
1. That his Master of Business Administration degree postdated the filing of the petition and, 
while it demonstrated his education, it did not demonstrate that his future employment would 
be as an educator; 
2. The petitioner's interest in an international law workshop in 2009 and post-filing 
participation in a similar workshop in 2011 did not change his proposed occupation from 
lawyer to educator; 
3. The petitioner did not submit new facts relating to the June 25, 2014 motion decision and, 
therefore, the filing did not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen; 
4. The evidence in the form of email correspondence between the petitioner and a representative of 
does not demonstrate that the petitioner has satisfied the plain language 
requirements of the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(ii); 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
5. The petitioner did not explain how the 2013 Policy Recommendations for 
Next Mayor from the Bar, which does not name or cite the petitioner, 
demonstrates that the petitioner has performed in a leading or critical role for or 
any other distinguished organization or establishment; see 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
6. The petitioner did not address the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
The present motion to reopen addresses item 2 above, asserting and documenting his participation in 
the 2009 workshop, which predates the filing of the petition. However, within the current motion, 
the petitioner did not address the remaining items which are fundamental to eligibility. We have 
addressed the merits of the petitioner's bases for eligibility within the decisions issued on the 
following dates: June 21, 2013; November 29, 2013, June 25, 2014; October 15, 2014. In each of 
these instances, we explained the bases for our conclusion that the petitioner's evidence did not 
support his eligibility claims under the criteria set forth at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). A successful 
motion must overcome not only our discussion of his occupation, but also our conclusion that his 
previous filing did address all of our previous concerns and that his evidence does not satisfy any of 
the criteria at 8 C.F.R § 204.5(h)(3). 
While the petitioner may have discussed his area of intended employment within this motion, 
because the petitioner did not address and overcome each of the issues we discussed in our most 
recent decision, he did not establish that his case warrants reopening and has essentially abandoned 
those issues. Cf 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). Accordingly, any 
future motion will need to overcome our conclusion that this motion did not address all of the bases 
for our most recent 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 fac ie case." /d. at 108. The result also needlessly wastes the time and efforts of the triers of 
fact who must attend to the filing requests. /d. A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a 
"heavy burden." /d. at 110. With the current motion, the petitioner has not met that burden. 
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 ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 4 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. The decision of the AAO dated July 2, 2012, is 
affirmed, and the petition remains denied.