dismissed O-1A Case: Business

(b)(6)
DATE~y 2' 1 2014 OFFICE: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
INRE: Petitioner: 
Beneficiary : 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Admlnistrative Appeals Office (AAO) 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
FILE 
PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker Pursuant to Section 101(a)(15)(0) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(0) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish 
agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law 
or policy to your case or if you seek to present new .facts for consideration, you may file a motion to 
reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or 
Motion (Form I-290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B 
instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and 
other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The California Service Center Director denied the nonimmigrant visa petition. The 
petitioner filed an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), which was dismissed on April 
2, 2013. Most recently, the AAO dismissed the petitioner's motion to reconsider in a decision dated 
February 18, 2014. The matter is once again before the AAO on a motion to reconsider. The AAO will 
dismiss the instant motion to reconsider. 
In the AAO's decision dated April2, 2013 dismissing the appeal, the AAO found that the petitioner either 
abandoned its claims of eligibility or failed to establish the beneficiary's eligibility under the following 
criteria: 8 C .F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(J); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(4); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7); 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(8); and 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). The AAO observed that the petitioner never 
claimed eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A), 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2), or 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(6), and had not established eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). 
The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, contesting only the AAO's findings with respect to the 
regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) and (7). In the AAO decision dated February 18, 
2014, the AAO reaffirmed its previous fmdings that the petitioner failed to establish eligibility under 8 
C.F.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) and (7), and found all other claims abandoned. Significantly, the AAO 
concluded that, even if the AAO had found the petitioner's assertions regarding the evidence under 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3) and (7) to be persuasive, the petitioner would still have failed to establish 
eligibility under at least three of the regulatory criteria as required by the regulation. The AAO stated: 
"Therefore, the proper conclusion in any case is that the [petitioner] has failed to satisfy the regulatory 
requirement of three types of evidence." 
In the instant motion to reconsider, the petitioner asserts that the AAO erred in its interpretation of the law 
and its consideration of evidence under the criterion at 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). The petitioner 
does not contest or address the AAO's finding with respect to the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3), thus abandoning its claim of eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). 1 As 
such, the only remaining criterion in which the petitioner claims eligibility and has not abandoned is 8 
C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). 
Upon review, the petitioner has failed to meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. The regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) states, in pertinent part: 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any 
pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect 
1 Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-
27312011, 2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the court found the plaintiffs claims 
to be abandoned as he failed to raise them on appeal to the AAO). 
(b)(6)
Page 3 
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
application of law or Service policy. A motion to reconsider a decision on an application 
or petition must, when 
filed, also establish that the decision was incorrect based on the 
evidence of record at the time ofthe initial decision. (Emphasis added.) 
In order to establish eligibility for 0-1 classification as an alien of extraordinary ability in the field of 
business, the petitioner must establish the beneficiary's eligibility under at least three of the eight criteria 
set forth at 8 C.F .R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)? Here, the petitioner only asserts eligibility under one criterion 
at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B), specifically, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7). Therefore, even if the 
petitioner were able to establish eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7), the petitioner has not 
explained and established how the AAO's ultimate conclusion that the petitioner failed to satisfy the 
regulatory requirement of three types of evidence was incorrect. As such, the instant motion fails to meet 
the regulatory requirements for a motion to reconsider pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The instant 
motion to reconsider must be dismissed. 3 . 
Finally, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C) requires that motions be "[a]ccompanied by a 
statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable decision has been or is the subject of any 
judicial proceeding." The petitioner's previous motion did not contain the statement required by 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), nor does the current motion. The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) states that a 
motion which does not meet applicable requirements must be dismissed. Therefore, because the instant 
motion does not meet the applicable filing requirements listed in 8 C.F .R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii)(C), it must 
also be dismissed for this reason. 
Motions for the reopening or reconsideration of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons 
as petitions for rehearing and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. See INS v. 
Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a 
proceeding bears a "heavy burden." INSv. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. With the current motion, the movant has 
not met that burden. The motion will be dismissed, the proceedings will not be reconsidered, and the 
previous decisions of the director and the AAO will not be disturbed. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
2 The petitioner has never claimed eligibility under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A) or 8 C.F.R. § 
214.2(o)(3)(iii)(C). See supra footnote 1. 
3 Since the instant motion to reconsider is dismissed, the AAO will not reconsider the merits of the 
petitioner's claims under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7).