dismissed EB-1A Case: Martial Arts

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 07, 2024 In Re: 29259333 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (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 seven motions, which we dismissed. The matter is now before us on an 
eighth motion, which is a 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. Upon 
review, we will dismiss the motion. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our 
latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(ii) . We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
In our most recent decision, the dismissal of the Petitioner's seventh motion, we determined that the 
Petitioner did not show that we erroneously applied law or policy in deciding that he did not meet 
eligibility criteria concerning awards, membership, the performance of leading or critical roles, and 
contributions of major significance to the field in which he claims have extraordinary ability. 
Although the Petitioner generally asserted that we failed to consider his documentary evidence and 
erred in its review of evidence, he did not identify what evidence was not considered or specify how 
his motion was erroneously dismissed. For the sake of brevity, we incorporate our previous analysis 
of the record. 1 
In the current motion, the Petitioner submits a brief that is almost identical to the brief submitted with 
his sixth motion. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 l&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). Disagreeing with our conclusions 
1 Our most previous decision in this matter was ID# 27202723 (AAO JUN. 5, 2023). 
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. Accordingly, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that his current motion meets the requirements for a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, we will dismiss his motion to reconsider. 
The Petitioner has not shown that we incorrectly applied law or policy in our previous decision based 
on the record before us. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2