dismissed O-1A Case: Dance

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF D-L-A-S-W-S-, INC. 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 23,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a dance studio, seeks to classify the Beneficiary as an individual of extraordinary 
ability in athletics. This 0-1 classification makes nonimmigrant visas available to foreign nationals 
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 Vermont Service Center denied the petition. finding that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied the evidentiary requirements applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability in athletics. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal on the same basis.' The matter is now bef()re us on 
a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. Upon review. we will deny the motions. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual 
who has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics that has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been 
recognized in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to 
continue to work in the area of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security ( DHS) 
regulations define "[ e ]xtraordinary ability in the field of science, education. business. or athletics" as 
"a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who have arisen to the 
very top ofthe field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth the evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner must submit evidence either of 
"significant national or international awards or prizes" such as ··an Academy Award, an Emmy. a 
Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award,'' or of at least three of six listed categories of documents. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(A)-(B). If the petitioner demonstrates that the listed criteria do not 
readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable evidence to establish 
eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2( o )(iii)( C). When a petitioner provides the requisite evidence. we then 
1 
See Matter of D-L-A-S-W-S-. Inc., ID# 186399 (AAO Mar. 23, 20 17). 
Matter of D-L-A-S-W-S-, Inc. 
determine whether the record, viewed in its totality, shows sustained national or international 
acclaim such that the individual is prominent in the field of endeavor. 
In addition, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. and a motion to 
reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to 
reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(2). and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Director determined that the Petitioner demonstrated the Beneficiary's eligibility for only one of 
the regulatory criteria- judging under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(-I)- of which he must meet at 
least three. On appeal, we found that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary satisfied 
the following contested criteria: awards under 8 C.F.R.§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(l), memberships under 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(2), published material under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(3). original 
contributions under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(5), critical or essential capacity under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(7), and high salary under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B)(R). 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103.5(a)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) does not define what constitutes a ··new .. 
fact, nor does it mirror the Board of Immigration Appeals' (the Board) definition of "new" at 
8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3) (stating that a motion to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence 
'·was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing"). Unlike 
the Board regulation, we do not require the evidence of a "new fact" to have been previously 
unavailable or undiscoverable. Instead, we interpret "new facts'' to mean facts that are relevant to 
the issue(s) raised on motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding. which 
includes the original petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously 
provided evidence does not constitute "new facts." 
On motion, the Petitioner presents a cover letter, a brief, a copy of the Director's decision, and a 
copy of our decision. In the cover letter, the Petitioner states that "[a] brief and additional evidence 
is attached." The Petitioner, however, does not provide "additional evidence" in support of the 
motion. In addition, the Petitioner's motion brief does not reference or discuss any new 
documentary evidence or facts. Because the Petitioner does not offer .. new facts .. supported by 
documentary evidence, the instant filing does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
2 
Matter r~f D-L-A-S-W-S-, Inc. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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). In addition, a motion to reconsider must be 
supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision. or 
statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or DHS. Here. the Petitioner does not argue 
on motion that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Rather. the 
motion brief mirrors the previously submitted appellate brief. Specifically. the Petitioner contends 
that the Director abused her discretion in denying the petition. and that she applied an incorrect 
standard of review. On appeal, we conducted a de novo review of the record and ultimately 
concluded that the Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the evidentiary criteria specified in the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iii)(B). The Petitioner's brief on motion does not contest or 
mention our decision. Further, the Petitioner does not support the motion with relevant precedent 
decisions to demonstrate that we misapplied law or policy. For these reasons. the Petitioner does not 
satisfy the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not offered new facts demonstrating eligibility for the benefit sought. nor has the 
Petitioner established that our previous decision was incorrect. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter (~f D-L-A-S-W-S-, Inc., ID# 696813 (AAO Oct. 23, 2017)