dismissed EB-1A Case: Not Specified

(b)(6)
DATE: 
APR 1 6 2014 
INRE : Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Office : TEXAS SERVICE CENTER 
U.S. Department of Homeland Securi ty 
U.S. C itizens hip and Immigrat ion Services 
Administr ative Appeal s Office (AAO) 
20 Massac huse tts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washingt on, DC 205 29- 2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE: 
PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeal s Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for c onsideration, you may f ile a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http: //www.uscis.gov /fonns for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~* Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administr ative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition and affirmed that decision on motion. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed 
the petitioner ' s appeal of that decision on December 18, 2012, and dismissed two subsequently filed 
motions to reopen and motions to reconsider on June 10, 2013 and October 2, 2013. The matter is 
now before the AAO on a third motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. The motions will be 
dismissed, the previous decision of the AAO will be affirmed, and the petition will remain denied. 
In order to properly file a motion , the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii) requires that the 
motion must 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 proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and 
status or result of the proceeding." The regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(4) requires that "[a] motion 
that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." The petitioner did not submit a 
statement regarding whether the validity of the decision of the AAO has been or is the subject of any 
judicial 
proceeding. 
Notwithstanding the above, in the petitioner's January 17, 2013 motions, the petitioner submitted a 
brief primarily addressing the director's decision. The petitioner did not submit any documentary 
evidence in support of that motion and did not address the AAO's dismissal of the petitioner's 
appeal. The AAO dismissed the motion, stating that it only considers arguments and evidence 
relating to the grounds underlying the AAO's most recent decision and that the petitioner's 
opportunity to contest the director's findings was the previously filed appeal. 
In the petitioner's July 1, 2013 motions, the petitioner submitted a brief and generally claimed that 
the AAO erred in its June 10, 2013 decision. However , the petitioner did not submit any 
documentary evidence in support of the motion to reopen, and the petitioner did not explain how the 
AAO 's dismissal of the previous motions was in error, nor did the petitioner provide any arguments 
or refer to any legal authority demonstrating how the AAO ' s dismissal of the prior motions was 
based on an incorrect application of law or USCIS policy in support of the motion to reconsider. 
Nonetheless, the AAO further concluded that the petitioner's June 10, 2013 filing did not sufficiently 
address the merits of the petitioner's eligibility. 
Regarding the petitioner's current motions, the petitioner again must establish that the AAO ' s most 
recent decision , the decision 
dismissing the petitioner's motion to reopen and motion to reconsider 
on October 2, 2013, was itself in error. The petitioner has not done so in this proceeding. 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Motions for the reopening of immigration 
proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for rehearing and motions for a new 
trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing 
INS v. Abudu , 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a "heavy burden." 
Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. 
The petitioner did not submit affidavits or other documentary evidence as required pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). Therefore, the petitioner ' s filing does not meet the applicable 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
requirements for a motion to reopen and the motion to reopen will be dismissed pursuant to the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R.§ 103.5(a)(4). 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
USCIS policy. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the 
original decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which seeks 
a new hearing based on new or previously unavailable evidence. Compare id. and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). 
A motion to reconsider cannot be used to raise a legal argument that could have been raised earlier in 
the proceedings. See Matter of Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216, 220 (BIA 1990, 1991). Rather, the 
"additional legal arguments" that may be raised in a motion to reconsider should flow from new law or 
a de novo legal determination reached in its decision that could not have been addressed by the party. 
Further, a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief 
presented on appeal and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision. Matter of 
0-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006). Instead, the moving party must specify the factual and legal 
issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in the initial decision or must show how 
a change in law materially affects the prior decision. /d. at 60. 
On motion, the petitioner briefly restates previous claims that he meets six of the criteria at the 
regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). However, the petitioner did not provide any arguments or refer 
to any legal authority demonstrating that the AAO's dismissal of the prior motions on October 2, 
2013 was based on an incorrect application of law or users policy pursuant to the regulation at 8 
C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Again, the petitioner makes no argument that explains how the AAO's 
dismissal of the motions was in error. Although the AAO thoroughly analyzed the documentary 
evidence and addressed each of the petitioner's claims in the previous decisions, the petitioner 
provided no explanation as to how the AAO erred. in any of its prior decisions. 
As noted above, a motion to reconsider must include specific allegations as to how the AAO erred as 
a matter of fact or law in its prior decision, and it must be supported by pertinent legal authority. 
Because the petitioner has failed to raise such allegations of error in the motion to reconsider, the 
AAO will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration 
benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 
(BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider are dismissed, the decision of the 
AAO dated October 2, 2013 is affirmed, and the petition remains denied.