Date of Decision: July 23, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Martial Arts Instructor
Field: Martial Arts and Training
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Ninth motion to reopen and reconsider dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner filed a combined ninth motion to reopen and reconsider but failed to satisfy the applicable requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5.
Key Issues Highlighted in the Decision:
- Repetition of Previous Arguments:
- The petitioner reiterated identical arguments and resubmitted previously provided evidence, which had already been reviewed and dismissed in prior motions.
- The AAO emphasized that a motion to reconsider requires showing an error in the most recent prior decision, not simply disagreeing with the outcome.
- Lack of New Facts or Evidence:
- A motion to reopen must present new, relevant facts supported by documentary evidence. The petitioner failed to submit new information and instead resubmitted materials already addressed in earlier decisions.
- Failure to Establish Legal or Policy Error:
- The petitioner did not demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.
- The arguments provided did not show how the AAO’s analysis of the evidence was erroneous.
Key Points from the Decision
Scope of Motion:
The AAO reiterated that the scope of any motion is limited to reviewing the prior decision. In this case, the petitioner failed to address specific errors in the AAO’s most recent ruling.
Relevance of Evidence:
Resubmission of evidence without new facts or significant additions does not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen.
Purpose of Motion to Reconsider:
The AAO cited Matter of O-S-G-, explaining that a motion to reconsider is not an opportunity to resubmit the same arguments without demonstrating errors in the prior decision.
Supporting Documentation
Submitted Evidence: The petitioner resubmitted materials and arguments that were previously reviewed and found insufficient to establish eligibility for EB-1 classification.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The ninth combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet the requirements for a motion to reopen by presenting new facts or evidence, and the motion to reconsider did not demonstrate legal or policy errors in the prior decision. The petition remains denied.
