dismissed EB-1A Case: Academia

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 22105561 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : SEPT . 1, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a former professor at seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S .C. 
§ l 153(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 . 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition in 2012 and dismissed two subsequent 
motions in 2012 and 2013, respectively, concluding that the Petitioner had not satisfied the initial 
evidence requirements for this immigrant visa classification. In 2014, we dismissed the Petitioner 's 
appeal of the Director's 2013 decision. We have since dismissed twelve motions filed by the Petitioner 
between 2014 and 2021. Most recently, we dismissed his September 2021 (twelfth) motion to 
reconsider as untimely on February 22, 2022 . The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and 
reconsider our decision. 
In these proceedings , it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review , we will dismiss the motion to reopen and 
reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). In addition, a motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and 
be supported by any pertinent precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) 
establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time 
of the initial decision . 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. 
Under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l) and 8 C.F .R. § 103.8(b), in general , motions must be filed within 33 days 
of the adverse decision. In response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic , however, USCIS 
extended the deadline for filing a Form 1-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion. A petitioner may file a 
Form I-290B within 60 calendar days from the date of the adverse decision, if USCIS issued the 
decision between March 1, 2020, and January 15, 2022. 1 As relating to a motion to reopen the 
proceeding, the filing deadline may be excused in the discretion of USCIS if a petitioner demonstrates 
that the delay was reasonable and was beyond their control. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to individuals with extraordinary 
ability which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in the field through extensive documentation. The implementing 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of their achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If the petitioner does not submit this 
evidence, then they must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the 
ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, published 
material in certain media, and scholarly articles). Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence 
requirements, we then consider the totality of the material provided in a final merits determination and 
assess whether the record shows sustained national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the 
individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. 
USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
III. ANALYSIS 
In our February 2022 decision, we dismissed the Petitioner's twelfth motion as untimely filed. We 
explained that a motion on an unfavorable decision must be filed within 33 calendar days of the date 
we mailed the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l), 103.8(b). However, because of the COVID-19 
pandemic, we noted that USCIS would consider a Form I-290B filed within 60 calendar days of an 
unfavorable decision. Our decision further stated: "On July 9, 2021, we mailed the unfavorable 
decision to you. Your Form I-290B was received at the designated filing location on September 15, 
2021, which is 68 days after the decision." 
A. Motion to Reopen 
The Petitioner contends that his twelfth motion "was sent on time" and that the filing delay was 
reasonable and beyond his control. He presents a U.S. Postal Service receipt indicating that he mailed 
his Form I-290B and supporting documents on August 3, 2021. 2 This evidence is sufficient to 
corroborate the Petitioner's claim that he mailed his Form I-290B more than one month in advance of 
the filing deadline. There is no indication that the Petitioner's actions contributed to the unusual delay 
that occurred from after the date of mailing until the Form I-290B's receipt at the designated filing 
location on September 15, 2021. Because the record shows that the filing delay was reasonable and 
beyond his control, we will exercise our discretion to excuse the late filing of his twelfth motion. See 
1 USCIS Extends Flexibilityfor Responding to Agency Requests, available at https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis­
extends-flexibility-for-responding-to-agency-requests ( accessed on August 31, 2022). 
2 The record also includes a copy of the envelope in which his Form I-290B submission was mailed. The envelope was 
correctly addressed to the designated filing location and shows a postmark date of August 3, 2021. 
2 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l). Accordingly, we will address the merits of his untimely (September 2021) 
twelfth motion in this proceeding. 
The present motion and his twelfth motion, however, do not offer new facts or evidence indicating 
that the Petitioner has received a major, internationally recognized award, or that he satisfies at least 
three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). He therefore has not 
overcome our prior determination on these issues. 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
With respect to the merits of his arguments in support of both the present motion and the twelfth 
motion, the Petitioner lists documents previously considered in earlier proceedings and contends that 
he meets seven of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner's conclusory 
statements that he satisfies seven regulatory criteria and is otherwise qualified for the requested 
classification, and his repetition of arguments previously made in support of his appeal and prior 
motions, do not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 3 In addition, while the Petitioner 
states that he "has 7 (seven) university degrees," he has not shown that his academic degrees fulfill 
any specific criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner's arguments on motion do not 
demonstrate that we erred in concluding that he had not established his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability under section 203(b )(1 )(A) of Act. In addition, the Petitioner has not shown that 
our determination was based on an incorrect application oflaw, regulation, or USCIS policy. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that we erred as a matter of law or USCIS policy, nor has he 
established new facts relevant to our decision that would warrant reopening of the proceedings. 
Consequently, we have no basis for reopening or reconsideration. The Petitioner's appeal therefore 
remains dismissed, and his underlying petition remains denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3 For instance, the Petitioner points to his receipt of an ____ in 2005, but he has not shown that this award 
constitutes a one-time achievement consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), or evidence of a nationally or internationally 
recognized award consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). In our February 12, 2020 decision dismissing the Petitioner's 
tenth motion, we noted that we had previously explained that the record did not demonstrate that the 
the Petitioner received enjoyed national or international recognition in his field. Further, we emphasized that, in his 
previous motion, the Petitioner did not address our determination that although he claimed to have received an international 
I in 2005, the record did not indicate that the international edition of the award existed prior to 2010. 
3