dismissed EB-1A Case: Master Mariner

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 16716213 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : APR. 29, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a master mariner and specialist surveyor, 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, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner: (1) had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria; (2) seeks 
to continue working in the area of claimed extraordinary ability; and (3) would substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States, as required. The Petitioner filed two combined motions to reopen and 
reconsider. On both occasions, the Director granted the motions, withdrew the prior decision, and 
issued a new denial notice . We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal, finding that the 
Petitioner met only one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, performing in a leading or critical role 
for distinguished organizations or establishments under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reconsider and motion to reopen. 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 both motions . 
The motion to reconsider was not accompanied by a statement regarding the basis for the motion . 
Although the Petitioner acknowledges our dismissal of his appeal in a letter accompanying the motion, 
the letter does not contain any reference to the specific findings made in our decision. In addition, the 
Petitioner's letter did not provide any new facts, and the motion to reopen was not accompanied by 
any new evidence. 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, 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) . A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) states, in pertinent part: "A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed." The instant motion consists of the above-referenced 
letter from the Petitioner. There is no reference made to the findings made in our decision and the 
specific deficiencies remarked upon therein, no new facts provided to support a motion to reopen, and 
no specific reasons stated for reconsideration. 1 Accordingly, the motion will be dismissed for failing 
to meet the applicable requirements. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
1 The Petitioner also did not include the required "statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has 
been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 8 
C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C). Therefore, because the instant motion does not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 
8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must also be dismissed for this reason. 
2