dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 21, 2025 InRe: 35117479 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Exceptional Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks first preference immigrant 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). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that she satisfied at least three of the ten required regulatory criteria listed at 8 C .F.R. § 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). We dismissed the appeal and a subsequent combined motion to reopen and 
reconsider. The matter is now before us on motion to reopen. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). The scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the 
proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Therefore, we will only consider new evidence to the 
extent that it pertains to our latest decision dismissing the combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 
We may grant motions that satisfy the requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested 
benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have 
the potential to change the outcome). Here, the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that 
we erred in dismissing the prior motion. 
The current motion asserts that the Petitioner has established the criteria for a lesser national or 
international prize, published material, contributions of major significance in the field, and that the 
Petitioner has performed a leading or critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (iii), (v), and (viii). Petitioner did not argue eligibility for any of these 
criteria in the prior motion. As noted above, we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it 
pertained to our latest decision. 
Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, 
we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew and, 
therefore, the underlying petition remains denied. Therefore, the motion will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(4). 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2