dismissed EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAY 21, 2024 In Re: 31223097 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks to classify the Beneficiary 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). 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not 
establish that the Beneficiary satisfied at least three of the initial evidentiary criteria. We summarily 
dismissed the Petitioner's 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. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&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. 
In our November 2023 summary dismissal decision, we stated that the Petitioner's appeal did not 
identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision. 
Further, while the Petitioner indicated that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted to 
the AAO within 30 calendar days of filing the appeal, the record did not show that the AAO received 
those materials within that period. Instead, the Petitioner's motion indicates that its supplemental 
appeal brief was incorrectly sent to Tempe, Arizona rather than the AAO. Any brief and/or evidence 
submitted after filing the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, 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 I-
290B. Because the AAO did not receive the supplemental brief and the Petitioner's appellate 
submission did not identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact, we 
summarily dismissed the appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v). 
On motion, the Petitioner presents a copy of its August 2023 supplemental brief and a FedEx tracking 
receipt showing that the brief was incorrectly sent to Tempe, Arizona rather than the AA0. 1 The 
Petitioner asks that we consider the arguments presented in its legal brief challenging the Director's 
June 2023 decision. 
The only decision properly before us on motion is our November 2023 appellate decision, and not the 
Director's June 2023 denial of 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" which in this case is our November 2023 
decision. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that our summary dismissal decision was based on an 
incorrect application oflaw or users policy and that our decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
in the record at the time of the decision. In addition, the Petitioner has not offered new evidence or 
facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our appellate decision. 
The Petitioner has not established new facts relevant to our appellate decision that would warrant 
reopening of the proceedings, nor has it shown that we erred as a matter of law or users policy. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration of our decision. Accordingly, 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. 
1 The tracking receipt shows a delivery date of August 3, 2023. 
2