dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 10, 2025 In Re: 35908213 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner is a lawyer who 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding the record did not establish that she received a major, internationally recognized 
award, nor did she demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. The Petitioner 
filed a subsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider that the Director dismissed. The matter 
is now before us on appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to 
demonstrate eligibility to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by a preponderance of 
the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). We 
review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 
2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
We begin any appeal ensuring the filing party identifies an erroneous conclusion of law or statement 
of fact within the most recent decision in a previous proceeding . See 8 C .F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), 
103.3(a)(2)(i)-(iv). This applies to appeals of adverse conclusions on petitions and applications or 
appeals of adverse decisions on motions. Under that framework, we look to whether the Director met 
their responsibilities for that particular type of decision ( e.g., petition denials or revocations versus 
motion dismissals). When it comes to motions, we evaluate the following: 
1. For a motion to reopen at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) we consider whether the Petitioner stated 
new facts and supported those facts with documentary evidence; and 
2. For a motion to reconsider at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) we consider whether the Petitioner 
established the Director's prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
policy, and whether the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 
As a result, we consider whether the Petitioner has demonstrated that the Director improperly 
dismissed the motion to reopen and reconsider. 
But here, the Petitioner's appeal brief only addresses the original petition denial discussing her 
eligibility, while the most recent decision from the Director was their determination that the combined 
motion failed to meet the requirements of either type of motion. It was that latest determination that 
the Petitioner must address first in this appeal, and only after showing the Director was incorrect in 
their motion decision may they request we evaluate their eligibility under the merits discussed in the 
original petition denial. 
In other words, she argues on appeal why she believes the Director's petition denial was incorrect 
instead of why the Director's motion dismissal was performed in error. So, her failure to address why 
the Director's motion dismissal contained any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact is a 
singularly sufficient basis to dismiss her appeal. This shortcoming means this appeal also warrants a 
summary dismissal according to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
Further, because the most recent decision was related to the motions and not to the petition filing, 
when the Petitioner did not contest any issue within the Director's motion decision, she abandoned 
her claims relating to those issues. E.g., Matter Khan, 28 I&N Dec. 850, 852 n.4 (BIA 2024) (finding 
a topic is waived that was an issue before the lower adjudicative body but the filing party does not 
raise it on appeal). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
2