dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 19, 2023 In Re: 27715487 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a martial artist, 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 Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition in November 2018 , concluding that the 
Petitioner did not establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(h)(3) . We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal and six subsequent motions. The matter 
is again before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demon strate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review , we will dismiss the 
combined motions. 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy to the prior decision , and 
a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts . The requirements of a motion to 
reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) , and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
On motion, the Petitioner contests the correctness of our appeal decision. In support of the motion , 
the Petitioner relies on a statement , and no other evidence , asserting his eligibility as a martial artist 
of extraordinary ability . While the statement asserts that he meets four of the evidentiary criteria , it 
does not explain or point to any factual, legal, or policy errors in our most recent decision of February 
10, 2023. 
The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) , (ii). Therefore , we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it 
pertains to our latest decision dismissing the motion to reopen. Here , the Petitioner has not provided 
new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion. Because the Petitioner has not 
established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our 
prior decision. 
In addition, the Petitioner's contentions in his current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have 
already considered in our previous decisions. See e.g., Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 
2006) ("a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same 
brief presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior Board 
decision"). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, therefore, the underlying petition remains 
denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2