dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 10634402 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT. 24, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner , who asserts to be a "sponsor-investigator ," seeks classification as an individual 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 revoked the approval of 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 achie vement or evidence that meets at least three of the 
ten regulatory criteria. We affirmed the Director's decision, and subsequently reaffirmed our findings 
in three motion decisions between 2013 and 2020. 1 
The matter is now before us for the fourth time on a combined motion to reconsider and reopen. 2 
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 deny the motions. 
I. LAW 
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). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
1 The record reflects that the Petitioner established that he met only one criterion, scholarly articles under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
2 Our most recent decision in this matter is ID# 5301 337 (AAO Jan. 15, 2020). 
In our most recent decision denying the Petitioner's third motion to reconsider, we found that the 
Petitioner made the same previous arguments without demonstrating how we improperly adjudicated 
his third motion as a matter of law or policy. In addition, we concluded that although he presented 
evidence in the form ofregulations from the United States Food and Drug Administration and a final 
rule from the United States Department of Health and Human Services relating to a responsible party 
for a clinical, the Petitioner did not explain and establish how they demonstrated his eligibility for any 
additional criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
A. Judicial Proceeding Statement 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) requires the motion to be "[a]ccompanied by a statement 
about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any judicial 
proceedings and, if so, the court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." The Petitioner, 
however, did not include the required statement. Therefore, the Petitioner's motions do not meet the 
applicable requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
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 proceeding at the 
time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). In the current motion to reconsider, the Petitioner submits 
an almost identical brief that he previously submitted in support of his third motion and makes the 
same, previous arguments without demonstrating how we improperly adjudicated his third motion as 
a matter oflaw or policy. Disagreeing with our conclusions without showing that we erred as a matter 
oflaw or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence is not a ground to reconsider 
our decision. 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.) 
As the Petitioner did not demonstrate that we incorrectly denied his most recent motion, he did not 
establish that he meets the requirements of a motion to reconsider. Therefore, we will deny his motion 
to reconsider. 
C. Motion to Reopen 
We will similarly deny the Petitioner's motion to reopen. A motion to reopen must state new facts 
and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reopen must state 
new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The regulation at 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a "new" fact, nor does it mirror the Board of 
Immigration Appeals' (the Board) definition of"new" at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2( c)(l) (stating that a motion 
to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence "was not available and could not have been 
discovered or presented at the former hearing"). Unlike the Board regulation, we do not require the 
evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or undiscoverable. Instead, we interpret 
"new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on motion and that have not been 
2 
previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original petition. Reasserting previously 
stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts." 
In the current motion, the Petitioner offers the same previously submitted documentation that he 
provided in support of his third motion. As this evidence does not qualify as "new" and we already 
evaluated it in earlier proceedings, we will not farther consider it in this proceeding. Accordingly, we 
will deny his motion to reopen. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that we incorrectly denied his most recent motions based on the record 
before us, nor does he support the motion with new facts and evidence, establishing that he fulfills at 
least three of the evidentiary criteria. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
3