The Petitioner, a mechanic specializing in trucks and heavy machinery, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 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.
Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies at least three of the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or that his field is within the statutory parameters of the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics for which the classification is available. We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal. The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5.
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by apreponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion.
Law
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 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).
The scope of any motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii). Thus, our analysis for the combined motion is limited to the following: (1) whether the Petitioner establishes that the dismissal of the previous appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy; or (2) whether the Petitioner presents a new fact, supported by evidence, that shows proper cause to reopen our decision on the previous appeal. We may grant p. 2 motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 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 aproceeding bears a "heavy burden." See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110.
Analysis
A. Motion to Reconsider
The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to show error based on an incorrect application of law or policy in the most recent prior decision. Here, the Petitioner's current motion to reconsider does not establish that our prior appeal 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, as discussed below.
In our dismissal notice, we determined that although the Petitioner met the criterion for judging others' work,1 he did not establish that he meets the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) relating to memberships and leading and critical roles. Because our consideration of those two criteria was sufficient to determine the outcome of the appeal, we reserved the criterion relating to high salary in relation to others in the field.
Statements in a brief, motion, or Notice of Appeal are not evidence and thus are not entitled to any evidentiaryweight.Claims not backed by documents Matter of S-M-, 22 l&N Dec. 49, 51 (BIA 1998). Allegations of error must be specific and supported by the record. The Petitioner has not met this burden on motion.
1. Membership
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires "[d]ocumentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields." In our appeal decision, we agreed with SCOPS' determination that the Petitioner did not document his membership in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) or establish that ASME is an association which requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field.
On motion, the Petitioner states he submitted "a formal certificate issued by ASME's Board of Governors" which is "direct and objective proof that the Petitioner was elected as a member of the organization." The record, however, does not mention or include such certificate, and the Petitioner 1 On motion. the Petitioner argues that he meets the criterion for paiiicipation as a judge of others' work under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). However, in our appeal decision, we withdrew SCOPS' decision on this issue, determining that the Petitioner met this criterion. We, therefore, will not discuss this criterion in this motion decision. p. 3 did not include this certificate with his motion. The Petitioner, therefore, has not provided documentation of his membership in an association in his field, as required under the regulation. In addition, the Petitioner argues on appeal that the regulation's "requirement that membership be based on 'outstanding achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts,' does not necessitate a rigidly stated criterion from the organization itself" He contends that, instead, the regulation "requires an evaluation of whether the organization inherently selects for professional distinction and achievements, which ASME does." He maintains that his "election as a member by the Board of Governors is an explicit recognition ofhis achievements and professional standing." To meet his burden of proof, the Petitioner must establish ASME's requirements for membership and show that those requirements are consistent with the regulation. The record includes printouts from ASME's website, which provide general information about ASME but do not mention the requirements for ASME membership. Without further evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that ASME membership requires outstanding achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts in the field, as required under the criterion.
The Petitioner has not established that we erred in our prior determination regarding the criterion. 2. Leading or Critical Role
The criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) requires "[e]vidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation." In our appeal decision, we determined that the Petitioner did not establish his claimed critical role as a heavy vehicle and mobile equipment service technician tori Ior for a division or department of that company. In addition, we concluded that he did not demonstrate the distinguished reputation otl Ior its division or department.
On motion, the Petitioner argues that we erred in our decision and applied a standard of proof higher than preponderance of the evidence. He contends that "[t]he evidence in the record, including multiple letters from company officials and supporting documentation, clearly establishes [his] significant contributions tol !division." In accordance with the USCIS Policy Manual, he maintains that the letters from the company's officials include detailed, probative information, which should be given due consideration in determining the Petitioner's critical role at I Ia significant project with I I
We agree that letters from persons with knowledge of the significance of an individual's role can be helpful in making a determination for critical role. See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(1), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. We look at whether the evidence establishes that the petitioner has contributed in a way that is of significant importance to the outcome of the company's activities or those of a division or department of the company. Id. Here, the Petitioner claims to have played a critical role tori Ia division of~-----~based on his work as a technician who trained staff, implemented efficiency-improving technical strategies, and contributed to the company's financial growth. The letters, however, mainly attest to the Petitioner's skills as a technician and his sharing his technician knowledge by training staff. One letter from the Petitioner's former supervisor indicates that during the Petitioner's tenure at the company, the company's yearly p. 4 income increased by 250% and the Petitioner's staff trainings enhanced the company's capabilities. As pointed out in our appeal decision, general assertions that the Petitioner's work contributed to the company's success do not suffice to demonstrate he had a critical role for the company, or a division or department of the company.
Moreover, we do not agree with the Petitioner's claims that our prior decision erroneously suggested that his contributions had to impact the entire company, rather than asegment of the company. Instead, our prior decision distinctly states that the Petitioner did not establish that he performed a critical role with the company, or a division or department of that company.
In addition, the record does not include documentation corroborating the Petitioner's claims ofD I lor itsl !division, having adistinguished reputation. The record includes two pages from Enter Engineering's website, which only provide a brief statement about the company and logos of other partner companies. Statements and claims alone are not sufficient to demonstrate the distinguished reputation of the company, or its division or department. Assertions made without supporting documentation are of limited probative value and do not carry the weight to satisfy the Petitioner's burden of proof. See Matter of Soffici, 22 l&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm'r 1998). The Petitioner has not provided documentation of the distinguished reputation of the company, or its division or department for which he claims to have had a critical role, as required under the criterion. The Petitioner has not established that we erred in our prior determination regarding the criterion. 3. Reserved Issues and Summary
In our appeal decision, we reserved discussion of the criterion relating to high salary or renumeration at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), because given our other conclusions, the Petitioner could not satisfy at least three of the eligibility criteria. Since the Petitioner did not meet the initial eligibility criteria, we did not conduct a final merits analysis referenced in Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010), but advised that based on the evidence in the record, the Petitioner did not establish the acclaim and recognition required for an alien of extraordinary ability. In addition, we reserved the issue of SCOPS' separate determination that the Petitioner's occupation as atechnician in the field of heavy vehicle and mobile equipment repair does not fall within one of the five fields of extraordinary ability, explaining that adiscussion of this issue was not necessary to reach adetermination in this proceeding. A detailed discussion of these reserved issues could not have changed the outcome of our appeal decision. On motion, the Petitioner contends that we erred in reserving these issues, as these reserved issues improperly leave "the initial erroneous findings uncorrected, which creates an incomplete adjudicatory record."
All claimed criteria received due consideration in the initial adjudication of the petition, and the denial decision addressed those criteria. The adjudication of an appeal is not the same as the adjudication of the underlying petition. In our appeal decision, we cited applicable case law indicating that, when discussion of a particular issue is not necessary to determine the outcome of an appeal, we may reserve that issue. Specifically, we cited INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976), in which the Supreme Court acknowledged, "[a]s a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision ofwhich is unnecessary to the results they reach." We also cited Matter p. 5 of L-A-C-, 26 l&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015), which cited INS v. Bagamasbad in support of the principle that, once we have made determinations that are sufficient to decide the outcome of an appeal, we need not address additional issues that would not change that outcome.
On motion, the Petitioner does not address this cited case law, and the Petitioner does not establish that the outcome of the appeal would have been different if we had addressed the criterion relating to high salary or renumeration, or his occupation not being within one of the five fields of extraordinary ability. The Petitioner has not established that our reservation of these issues was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision.
In this motion to reconsider, the Petitioner does not specify how our prior motion 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. Accordingly, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).
B. Motion to Reopen
The Petitioner has not stated any new facts or submitted additional evidence to establish that we erred in dismissing the appeal. The Petitioner, instead, submits a brief stating we erred in our determination based on evidence already in the record. Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant the reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. The motion to reopen will be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).
Ill. CONCLUSION
Because the Petitioner has not established new facts that would warrant reopening of the proceeding, we have no basis to reopen our prior decision. In addition, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time we issued our decision. Therefore, we will dismiss the motion. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4).
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed.