dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: DEC. 12, 2024 In Re: 35565821 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner 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 denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not meet 
the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification through presentation of evidence of either a 
one-time achievement or evidence showing that he meets at least three of the alternative evidentiary 
criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). We summarily dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent 
appeal. The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
MatteroJChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motions. 
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 reconsider must establish that our prior 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 
proceedings at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Because the scope of a motion is limited 
to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy the aforementioned requirements and 
demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. 
On August 23, 2024, we summarily dismissed the Petitioner's appeal because it did not specifically 
identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's unfavorable decision 
dated February 29, 2024. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). Rather, the Petitioner alleged in a conclusory 
manner on the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, that the Director erroneously denied the 
petition and indicated that he would submit a brief and/or additional evidence to our office within 30 
calendar days of filing the appeal. The record did not show that we had received these supplemental 
materials as of August 2024. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that he timely submitted a brief in support of his appeal, and we 
failed to consider it. He submits a copy of a brief dated April 15, 2024, a copy of a Federal Express 
mailing label with a tracking number, and proof that the package was delivered on April 16, 2024. 
However, the newly submitted evidence indicates that the Petitioner's supplemental appeal brief was 
incorrectly sent to the users Vermont Service Center rather than the Administrative Appeals Office 
(AAO). Any brief and/or evidence submitted after the filing of an appeal must be sent directly to the 
AAO as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2)(viii) and the filing instructions for the 
Form r-290B. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he complied with these requirements when 
submitting his supplemental brief. 
The Petitioner requests that we consider the arguments presented in his appellate brief challenging the 
Director's February 29, 2024, decision, as the brief is now incorporated in the record. However, the 
only decision properly before us on motion is our August 23, 2024, decision, and not the Director's 
earlier decision denying the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii) (requiring that motions pertain 
to "the prior decision" or "the latest decision"). 
Here, the evidence provided on motion does not establish new facts relevant to our appellate decision 
that would warrant reopening of the proceedings. Further, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that 
our summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or users policy and that our 
decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. Consequently, 
as the Petitioner has not established proper cause for reopening or reconsideration of our prior decision, 
the motions will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). The Petitioner's appeal therefore remains 
dismissed, and the underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2