dismissed EB-1A Case: Unspecified

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JAN. 2, 2025 In Re: 35772009 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an alien 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 Nebraska Service Center Director denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers 
(petition), concluding that the record did not establish that she received a major, internationally 
recognized award, nor did she demonstrate that she met at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. We 
dismissed a subsequent appeal, and it is that appellate decision upon which the Petitioner files this 
motion to reopen. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility to U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375 (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). According to the Instructions for Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B, Notice of 
Appeal or Motion), any new facts and documentary evidence must demonstrate eligibility for the 
required immigration benefit at the time the application or petition was filed. A motion to reopen that 
does not satisfy the applicable requirements must be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
We do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously unavailable or undiscoverable. 
Instead, we interpret "new facts" to mean those that are relevant to the issues raised on motion and 
that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes within the original petition. 
Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute 
"new facts." Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these 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). 
In the Petitioner's appeal brief, she addressed both of the awards she discusses in the current motion 
to reopen. Our decision on that appeal addressed the topic and informed her that she could not present 
new evidence for the first time in her appeal. And this motion-based on that same appeal-is no 
different. As it relates to a motion to reopen, the requirement for "new facts" pertains to new 
information associated with the eligibility claims a filing party presented to us in their most recent 
filing; in this case, in the Petitioner's appeal brief. A motion to reopen following an adverse decision 
on an appeal should not act as a vehicle to introduce new eligibility claims for the first time. 
These two concepts (new facts versus new eligibility claims) are distinct and are not interchangeable. 
Filing parties must exhaust available administrative remedies (i.e., to present all foreseeable eligibility 
claims to the Director) and they cannot properly comply with agency procedural rules by simply failing 
to raise their claims depriving the lower body of the "opportunity to adjudicate their claims" and 
withholding their claims and presenting them to the appellate body for the first time in the appellate 
process. Pakdel v. City & Cnty. ofSan Francisco, California, 594 U.S. 474,480 (2021). 
This preclusion of presenting issues for the first time during the appeals process includes in any motion 
attendant to an appeal and we will not permit an end-run around our procedures by addressing an 
argument for the first time in a post-appellate motion. Philipp v. Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 
77 F.4th 707, 709-10 (D.C. Cir. 2023); United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 875-76 (11th Cir.), 
cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 95, 214 L. Ed. 2d 19 (2022); Cf.Arroyo-Sosa v. Garland, 74 F.4th 533, 543 
(8th Cir. 2023) ( quoting) Rincon v. Garland, 70 F.4th 1080, 1086 (8th Cir. 2023). 
Considering the Petitioner's membership claims, she now indicates she is unable to obtain adequate 
supporting documentation, and we consider that claim to be forfeited. 
Turning to the Petitioner's claims under the contributions of major significance criterion, our appellate 
decision noted she only presented assertions without adequate evidence to support the claims. Now 
on motion, she offers additional assertions, but she does not identify any supporting evidence to 
accompany those claims. This falls short of meeting the primary requirements for a motion to reopen. 
And finally, in the appeal decision we concluded she did not satisfy the leading or critical role criterion. 
In this motion, the Petitioner mentions that regulatory requirement, but her discussion of the topic ends 
there and she instead expresses appreciation that we acknowledged one aspect relating to her and she 
discusses her family members. 
On motion, the Petitioner does not present new facts, supported by documentary evidence. 
Accordingly, we will dismiss the motion to reopen. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we 
should reopen the proceedings. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
2