dismissed EB-1A Case: Marketing

identifying data deleted to 
prevent cleari) mwananted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Ofice of Administrative Appeals M S 2090 
Washington. DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
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. 5 1 153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned 
to the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to 
have considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5 for the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided 
your case by filing Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be 
filed within 30 days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 
5 103.5(a)(I)(i). 
/CIQ nc,b 
\ Perry Rhew 
k chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied this employment-based 
immigrant visa petition on May 20, 2008. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed 
the petitioner's appeal of that decision on June 23, 2009. The matter is now before the AAO on a 
motion to reopen. The motion will be dismissed, the previous decision of the AAO will be 
affirmed, and the petition will remain denied. 
On motion, the petitioner states that she agrees with the decision of the AAO except for the 
leading or critical role criterion (8 C.F.R. 5 204,5(h)(3)(viii)). The petitioner attempts to "clarify 
[her] role for [our] further understanding" pertaining to the Power Point presentation and website 
for the German National Tourist Office of New York. Further, the petitioner claims that her 
"role within the [ must be considered artistic as well as critical." In 
We note here that while the petitioner did not specifically challenge on motion the lesser 
nationally or internationally recognized awards or prizes criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)), the 
petitioner also submitted a website page from w~u..theamt.ricanvirtuosi.cotn regarding - 
along with two documents in the German language without full English language 
translations as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(3). 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or 
other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2). Based on the plain meaning of "new," a new 
fact is found to be evidence that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented 
in the previous proceeding. ' 
A review of the evidence that the petitioner submits on motion reveals no fact that could be 
considered "new" under 8 C.F.R. $ 103.5(a)(2). In addition, the petitioner failed to explain why the 
evidence was previously unavailable and could not have been submitted earlier. The petitioner has 
been afforded three different opportunities to this submit evidence: at the time of the original filing 
of the petition on June 1, 2007, in response to the director's request for additional evidence on 
February 28, 2008, and at the time of the filing of the appeal on June 17, 2008. A review of the 
evidence that the petitioner submits on motion reveals no fact that could be considered "new" under 
8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(2) and, therefore, cannot be considered a proper basis for a motion to reopen. 
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. 3 14, 323 (1 992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1 988)). A party seeking to 
reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current 
motion, the petitioner has not met that burden. The motion to reopen will be dismissed. 
' The word "new" is defined as "I. having existed or been made for only a short time . . . 3. Just discovered, found, or 
learned <new evidence> . . . ." WEBSTER'S 11 NEW RIVERSIDE UNIVERSITY DICTIONARY 792 (1984)(emphasis in 
original). 
Page 3 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed, the decision of the AAO dated June 23, 2009, is 
affirmed, and the petition remains denied.