dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: WL. 23, 2024 In Re: 32719881 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition 
for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a martial arts instructor , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
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 Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition . We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. 
Later, the Petitioner filed eight motions, which we dismissed. The matter is now before us on a ninth 
combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider. In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's 
burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. 
A motion that does not satisfy the applicable requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
For the following reasons, we are dismissing the Petitioner 's combined motions because they do not 
satisfy the requirements. 
The scope of any motion is limited to review of "the prior decision ." See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
In our most recent decision, the dismissal of the Petitioner's eighth motion to reconsider, we 
determined that the Petitioner submitted a brief that was almost identical to the brief submitted with 
his seventh motion . See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to 
reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit, in essence, the same brief and seek 
reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision). We explained that disagreeing with 
our conclusions without showing how we erred as a matter of law or pointing to policy that contradicts 
our analysis of the evidence is not a ground to reconsider our decision. Id. Therefore, the Petitioner 
did not show that his eighth motion met the requirements for a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(3). 
A motion to reopen affords a petitioner an opportunity to state new relevant facts, which must be 
supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). On motion to reopen, the Petitioner 
generally reiterates his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability and resubmits evidence offered 
in support of his previous motions, which we considered in dismissing them. Since the current motion to 
reopen does not include new facts or new evidence, the motion does not meet the requirements of a motion 
to reopen and must be dismissed. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was 1) based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy, and 2) incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). On motion, the Petitioner again contends that he qualifies as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. He reiterates identical arguments made in support of his previous motion, while 
requesting a different outcome. We addressed the Petitioner's prior arguments in our earlier decisions, 
and his repetition of the same arguments does not show proper cause for reconsideration. Matter of 
O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. at 56. The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to show error in the most recent 
prior decision. This motion to reconsider does not meet this standard and must be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2