dismissed EB-1A Case: Mechanical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 17718554 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : WL. 14, 2021 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a mechanical engineering technical specialist, seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. 
§ l 153(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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(h)(3), which require 
documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the ten regulatory 
criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) -(x). We summarily dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent 
appeal. The Petitioner then filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider, which we dismissed 
because it was filed untimely . Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a second appeal, which we rejected as 
improperly filed, and two subsequent combined motions to reopen and reconsider, which we also 
dismissed . The matter is now before us on a fourth combined motion to reopen and 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 combined motion . 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons for reconsideration, establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy , and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at 
the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of 
a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. The term 
"extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have risen to the 
very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner must either establish a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award) or provide sufficient qualifying 
documentation that meets at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) 
(including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Procedural History 
As noted, this matter is before us on a fourth motion to reopen and reconsider. To provide context for the 
Petitioner's claims regarding his previous filings, we have summarized the procedural history below: 
August 2018 The Director denied the Petitioner's immigrant petition, concluding that the Petitioner 
had not established eligibility for the classification sought. 
September 2018 The Petitioner appealed the Director's decision to our office and stated that he would 
submit a brief and additional evidence within 30 days. The record does not show, and 
the Petitioner does not claim, that he submitted those materials within that period. 
December 2018 We summarily dismissed the appeal, citing the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), 
which requires summary dismissal of an appeal that does not identify specifically any 
erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the decision being appealed. 
January 2019 The Petitioner filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, the 
Petitioner did not contest the summary dismissal of the appeal. Rather, the Petitioner 
addressed the grounds for denial of the underlying petition. 
June 2019 We dismissed the Petitioner's motion as untimely, because we received it after the 
expiration of the filing period defined at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(v)(B)(]). 
July 2019 The Petitioner appealed the denial of the motion, seeking to explain the delay in filing. 
2 
October 2019 We rejected the appeal, because the regulations make no provision for a petitioner to 
appeal a decision by the Administrative Appeals Office. 
November 2019 The Petitioner filed a second combined motion to reopen and reconsider, seeking both 
to explain the untimely filing of the January 2019 motion and to submit new evidence 
in support of the underlying petition. 
July 2020 We granted the Petitioner's motion to reopen in part and dismissed it in part, and 
dismissed the motion to reconsider. We excused the delay in filing the January 2019 
motion, under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), but we also determined that 
the Petitioner had not overcome the summary dismissal of his September 2018 appeal. 
July 2020 The Petitioner filed a third combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
February 2021 We dismissed the Petitioner's motion, concluding that he had not shown proper cause 
for reopening or reconsideration of our July 2020 decision. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner's current motion includes two supporting exhibits: (1) a copy of our February 2, 2021 
decision dismissing his third combined motion; and (2) correspondence from the U.S. Postal Service 
providing proof of delivery of his first combined motion at the USCIS designated filing location on 
January 29, 2019, a delivery date that has never been in dispute. Neither the Petitioner's brief nor 
these evidentiary exhibits introduce new facts to the record that could change the outcome of our 
previous decision. 
We will dismiss the motion to reopen, because the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening 
the proceeding. 
C. Motion to Reconsider 
For the current motion to qualify as a motion to reconsider, the Petitioner must demonstrate that our 
immediate prior decision (issued February 2, 2021, relating to the Petitioner's third combined motion), 
contained errors of fact, law, or policy that affected the outcome of the decision. 1 In that decision, we 
made the following determinations: 
• The Petitioner did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen because he did not 
introduce new facts to the record or submit new evidence that could establish his eligibility for 
the requested benefit at the time of filing; 
• The Petitioner did not establish that our July 2020 decision contained errors of fact, law, or 
policy. He alleged that we erred in summarily dismissing his appeal, but he did so by failing 
to differentiate between his September 2018 appeal filing and his January 2019 motion filing, 
which were separate proceedings that were dismissed by our office for different reasons; and 
1 See 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). 
3 
• The Petitioner did not demonstrate that we erred in summarily dismissing the original appeal 
and without such a showing, we need not reach his arguments that the Director erred by 
denying his immigrant petition. 2 
In the present motion, proper consideration is limited to these issues. In his brief: the Petitioner does 
not assert that we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in our decision dismissing his third 
combined motion to reopen and reconsider. Instead, he repeatedly argues that we should have deemed 
his appeal of the Director's decision to be timely filed, and that we should have adjudicated the appeal 
on its merits, rather than dismissing it based on a procedural defect caused by the delivery courier. 
Although the Petitioner cites to caselaw in support of his claim that his appeal should have been 
deemed timely filed, we emphasize that we did not dismiss the Petitioner's September 2018 appeal 
because it was untimely. The Petitioner filed a timely appeal in September 2018. However, he did 
not, at that time, identify any specific grounds for the appeal. Instead, he made the general statement 
that the denial contained unspecified errors which the Petitioner would address in a brief: to follow 
within 30 days. The record does not contain any timely supplemental brief from the Petitioner, and 
the Petitioner does not claim to have submitted one. We summarily dismissed the appeal because it 
did not identify an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. See 8 
C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
The Petitioner's only untimely filing was the first combined motion to reopen and reconsider filed in 
January 2019. We previously exercised our discretion to excuse the late filing of this motion to reopen 
in our decision dated July 2020. However, we determined that the January 2019 motion, when considered 
on its merits, did not cure the deficiencies in the Petitioner's September 2018 appeal. Specifically, the 
Petitioner's January 2019 motion did not include evidence that he had submitted a brief or 
supplemental evidence in support of his appeal or otherwise establish that our summary dismissal of 
the appeal was incorrect. Therefore, that motion did not provide proper cause for reopening his appeal. 
The Petitioner's remaining arguments on motion relate to the merits of his immigrant petition and his 
belief that the Director erroneously denied that petition. As we explained in our February 2021 
decision, the Petitioner's opportunity to allege specific errors in the Director's denial decision was in 
the appeal filed in September 2018 and the record reflects that he did avail himself of this opportunity 
when he filed his appeal. Absent evidence that we summarily dismissed his appeal in error, we need 
not reach the merits of his petition here. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The current motion does not establish that our most recent decision was incorrect. Rather, the 
Petitioner seeks to reach back to earlier stages of the proceeding that are outside the scope of this 
fourth motion. The Petitioner has not overcome our determination that summary dismissal was the 
2 We nevertheless briefly addressed the Petitioner's claim that he is eligible for classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of the Act, observing that the record does not support his assertion that 
he enjoys the required sustained national or international acclaim and that he is among "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
4 
proper, and required, outcome when presented with an appeal that contained no specific allegations of 
error in fact or law. 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5