dismissed EB-1A Case: Medical Science

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 5301337 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JAN. 15, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petitioner 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 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 affirmed the Director's decision , 
and subsequently reaffirmed our findings in two motion decisions between 2013 and 2018. 1 
The matter is now before us for the third 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 combined motions to 
reconsider and reopen. 
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. 
1 The record reflects that the Petitioner established that he met only one criterion , scholarly articles under the regulation at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
2 Our most recent decision in this matter is Matter of H-X- , ID# 1925252 (AAO Jan. 29, 2019) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our most recent decision denying the Petitioner's second motion to reconsider, we found that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that we incorrectly applied pertinent law or agency policy in our 
previous decision, denying the Petitioner's first motion to reconsider and reopen, based on the 
evidence in the record at the time. Moreover, we indicated that the Petitioner cited to regulations 
relating to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which were not dispositive to the initial 
evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Furthermore, although challenged by the 
Petitioner, we explained the Director's legal authority to revoke approvals of petitions. 
As it relates to his most prior motion to reopen, the Petitioner presented several pages from the 
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Manual, highlighting the occupational description for 
medical scientists, except epidemiologists, under SOC code 19-1042, and he resubmitted other 
material previously evaluated and discussed in the record. We determined that the Petitioner did not 
explain how the information from the SOC Manual related to or established his claimed eligibility for 
the membership criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
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 makes 
the same, previous arguments without demonstrating how we improperly adjudicated his second 
motion as a matter of law or policy. Disagreeing with our conclusions without showing that 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. 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 
2 
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 
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 previously submitted documentation. As this evidence does 
not qualify as "new" and we already evaluated it in earlier proceedings, we will not further consider it 
in this proceeding. The Petitioner did offer additional FDA regulations and a final rule from the 
Department of Health and Human Services relating to a responsible party for a clinical trial. However, 
the Petitioner did not establish that the regulations and final rule show his eligibility for any additional 
criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 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 his new evidence on motion demonstrate that he has fulfilled at least three of the 
evidentiary criteria. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
3