remanded EB-1A Case: Unknown

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 13, 2024 In Re: 34834118 
Appeal of Texas Service Center 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 in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics 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. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a 
motion to reconsider the decision. The Director denied the motion, concluding that the Petitioner did 
not meet the requirements to reconsider the decision. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .3. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the 
evidence. Matter ofChawath e, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in 
this matter de novo. Matter ofChristo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). 
When denying the Director must explain in writing the specific reasons for the denial. 8 C.F .R. § 
103.3(a)(l)(i); see also, Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must 
fully explain the reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to 
challenge the determination on appeal). In this instance, the Director did not provide any analysis of 
the record to support the conclusions that the motion was deficient. The Director also stated that the 
Petitioner did not provide additional evidence, a statement regarding judicial proceedings , or any 
changes within immigration law. These are not considerations for a motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). We will therefore remand the matter to the Director for issuance of a new decision 
based on the record of proceedings. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis.