dismissed EB-1A Case: Performing Arts

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Departmentof HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
20 MassachusettsAve.,N.W., MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
8 U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
JUL112012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
SELF-REPRESENTED
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If youbelievetheAAO inappropriatelyappliedthelawin reachingitsdecision,or youhaveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen
in accordancewiththeinstructionsonFormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,with afeeof $630.The
specificrequirementsfor filing sucha motioncanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.Do not file any motion
directly with the AAO. Pleasebeawarethat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresanymotionto befiled
within30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsiderorreopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based
immigrantvisa petition on October2, 2008. The AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
dismissedthe petitioner's appealof that decision on October 21, 2009, and dismisseda
subsequentlyfiled motionto reopenandmotionto reconsideron April 12,2011.1Thematteris
nowbeforetheAAO onasecondmotiontoreopenandamotionto reconsider.Themotionswill be
dismissed,thepreviousdecisionof theAAO will beaffirmed,andthepetitionwill remaindenied.
Theregulationat8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)providesthat"whentheaffectedpartyfiles a motion,
theofficial havingjurisdictionmay,for propercauseshown,reopentheproceedingor reconsider
theprior decision[emphasisadded]." In thecasehere,theprior decisionis theAAO's dismissal
of thepetitioner'smotionto reopenandmotionto reconsideronApril 12,2011.
In orderto properlyfile a motion,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)requiresthatthe
motion must be "[a]ccompaniedby a statementabout whether or not the validity of the
unfavorabledecisionhasbeenor is the subjectof anyjudicial proceedingand,if so,the court,
nature,date,andstatusor result of the proceeding." Furthermore,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(4)requiresthat "[a] motion that doesnot meetapplicablerequirementsshall be
dismissed.In this case,prior counselfailedto submita statementregardingif thevalidity of the
decisionof theAAO hasbeenor is subjectof anyjudicial proceeding.It is notedthattheAAO
indicatedin its previousdecisionthat the petitionerfailed to submit the judicial proceeding
statement.
Notwithstandingtheabove,regardingthepreviousmotionto reopen,theAAO determined:
A reviewof the evidencethat the petitionersubmitson motionsrevealsno fact
could be considered"new" under8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2). In addition,the
petitionerfailed to explain why the evidencewas previouslyunavailableand
could not havebeensubmittedearlier. The petitionerhasbeenaffordedthree
differentopportunitiesto submitthisevidence:atthetime of theoriginalfiling of
the petition, in responseto the director's requestfor additional evidence,and at
the time of the filing of the appeal. A reviewof the evidencethatthe petitioner
submitson motionrevealsno factthatcouldbeconsidered"new" under8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(2)and,therefore,cannotbeconsidereda properbasisfor a motionto
reopen.Furthermore,althoughthepetitionerclaimseligibility for threeadditional
criteria on motion, he failed [to] explainwhy thethreecriteria wereneverclaimed
It is notedthatattorne originallyfiledthemotionto reopenandmotionto reconsideron
behalfof thepetitioneronMay 16,2011. However,onNovember14,2011,theAAOreceiveda letterfrom
advisingthathis licenseto practicelaw wassuspendedandwithdrewhis appearanceascounselfor this
case. Specifically,on October18,2011,the Boardof ImmigrationAppeals(BIA) suspended from
practicing law before the BIA, the ImmigrationCourts, and the Departmentof HomelandSecurity. See
http://www.justicesov/eoir/discipline.htm.Accessedon July 3, 2012, and incorporatedinto the record of
proceeding.Therefore, is not recognizedastheattorneyof recordfor this proceeding.
Page3
previouslyor why hecouldnotpreviouslysubmitevidencepertainingto thethree
additionalcriteria.2
Regardingthe current motion to reopen,prior counsel submittedadditional documentary
evidenceandclaimedthat"the Petitionerwasnot awareof it [sic] existence,"andthe petitioner
"is dependentuponhis wife" to obtainthe documentationbut wasnot availablein time for
earliersubmissionbecauseof his wife's remotelocationin Nepal. Priorcounselfailedto submit
any documentaryevidenceregardinghis claims. The unsupportedstatementsof counselon
appealor in a motionarenot evidenceandthusarenot entitledto anyevidentiaryweight.See
INS v. Phinpathya,464 U.S. 183, 188-89 n.6 (1984). Moreover, the majority of the
documentationpertainsto eventsoccurringafterthefiling of thepetitionon April 2, 2007,such
asaninvitationalletterfrom the datedApril 20,
2011,to performon May 8, 2011. Eligibility mustbeestablishedatthetime of filing. 8 C.F.R.
§§103.2(b)(1),(12);MatterofKatigbak,14I&N Dec.45,49(Reg'lComm'r1971).A petition
cannotbeapprovedata futuredateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts.
MatterofIzummi,22I&N Dec.169,175(Comm'r1998).Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citing
MatterofBardouille, 18I&N Dec.114(BIA 1981),thatUSCIScannot"considerfactsthatcome
into beingonly subsequentto the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. Furthermore,the petitioner
submittedseveralrecommendationlettersfrom individualswho indicatedthattheyresidein the
United States.Thepetitionerprovidedno claimsasto why this evidencecouldnot havebeen
submittedearlier. In addition,prior counselfailed to address,as raisedin the AAO's prior
decision,why the threecriteriawereneverclaimedpreviouslyor why he couldnot previously
submitevidencepertainingto thethreeadditionalcriteria.
A motionto reopenmuststatethe new factsto be providedandbe supportedby affidavitsor
otherdocumentaryevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2).Basedontheplainmeaningof "new,"anew
factisfoundto beevidencethatwasnotavailableandcouldnothavebeendiscoveredorpresented
in thepreviousproceeding.3Motionsfor thereopeningof immigrationproceedingsaredisfavored
for thesamereasonsasarepetitionsfor rehearingandmotionsfor anewtrial onthebasisof newly
discoveredevidence.INSv. Doherty,502U.S.314,323(1992)(citingINSv.Abudu,485U.S.94
(1988)).A partyseekingtoreopenaproceedingbearsa"heavyburden."INSv.Abuda,485U.S.at
110. Forthereasonsstatedabove,thepetitionerfailedto demonstratethatanyof thedocumentary
evidencecan be considered"new" pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
Furthermore,thepetitionerfailed to establishthatthe documentaryevidenceovercomesanyof the
groundsof dismissalof thepetitioner'spreviousmotion. Therefore,thepetitioner'scurrentmotion
to reopenwill bedismissed.
2 The petitionerclaimedeligibility for the membershipcriterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(3)(ii),theoriginalcontributionscriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(v),andthe
leadingor criticalrolecriterionpursuantto theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(viii).
3Theword"new" isdefinedas"l. havingexistedor beenmadefor onlya shorttime. . . 3.Justdiscovered,found,or
learned<newevidence>. . . ." WEBsTER'SII NEWRIVERSlDEUNIVERSITYDICTIONARY792(1984)(emphasisin
original).
Page4
A motion to reconsidermust statethe reasonsfor reconsiderationand be supportedby any
pertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthatthedecisionwasbasedon an incorrectapplication
of law or U.S.CitizenshipandImmigration(USCIS)policy.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3).A motionto
reconsiderconteststhe correctnessof theoriginaldecisionbasedon thepreviousfactualrecord,
as opposedto a motion to reopenwhich seeksa new hearingbasedon new or previously
unavailableevidence.SeeMatterof Cerna,20I&N Dec.399,403(BIA 1991).
A motion to reconsidercannotbe usedto raisea legal argumentthat could havebeenraised
earlier in the proceedings.Rather,the "additional legal arguments"that may be raisedin a
motionto reconsidershouldflow from newlaw or a denovolegaldeterminationreachedin its
decisionthatmaynot havebeenaddressedby theparty. Furthera motionto reconsideris not a
processby which a partymay submit,in essence,the samebrief presentedon appealandseek
reconsiderationby generallyallegingerrorin theprior decision. Instead,themovingpartymust
specifythe factualandlegalissuesraisedon appealthatweredecidedin erroror overlookedin
theinitial decisionor mustshowhowa changein law materiallyaffectstheprior decision. See
Matterof Medrano,20I&N Dec.216,219(BIA 1990,1991).
As notedabove,a motion to reconsidermustincludespecificallegationsasto how the AAO
erredasa matterof fact or law in its prior decision,andit mustbesupportedby pertinentlegal
authority. However,prior counseldidnot claimthattheAAO's dismissalof thepreviousmotion
was basedon an incorrectapplicationof law or USCISpolicy, nor was it supportedby any
pertinentprecedentdecisions.Themotionto reconsiderdoesnot allegethatthe issues,asraised
onthepreviousmotion,involvedtheapplicationof precedentto a novelsituation,or thatthereis
new precedentor a changein law that affectsthe AAO's prior decision. As notedabove,a
motionto reconsidermustincludespecificallegationsasto how the AAO erredasa matterof
fact or law in its prior decision,andit mustbe supportedby pertinentlegalauthority.Because
the petitionerhasfailed to raisesuchallegationsof errorin his motionto reconsider,the AAO
will dismissthemotionto reconsider.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291
of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Themotionto reopenandthemotionto reconsideraredismissed,thedecisionof the
AAO datedApril 12,2011,is affirmed,andthepetitionremainsdenied.