dismissed EB-1A Case: Academia

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 10802044 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: JUL. 09, 2021 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petitioner for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a former professor a~ I College , seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(1 )(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b )(1 )(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 ten motions filed by the Petitioner 
between 2014 and 2019. Most recently, we dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider 
on February 12, 2020. The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. 
In these proceedings, the petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act; Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 
(AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must (1) state the reasons for reconsideration and 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). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reconsideration, a 
petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of a properly 
completed Form I-290B , Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause 
for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. See 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
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 
The issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner has established that our decision to dismiss his tenth 
motion, a combined motion to reopen and motion to reconsider, was based on an incorrect application 
of law or USCIS policy. 1 
On motion, the Petitioner places particular emphasis on his receipt of an •I I Award" in 2005, 
asserting that it should be considered evidence of a one-time achievement consistent with 8 C.F.R. § 
2 04. 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 I I Award" the 
Petitioner received enjoyed international recognition in his field. Further, we emphasized that, in his 
previous motion, the Petitioner did not address our determination that even though he claimed to have 
received an international! !Award" in 2005, the record did not demonstrate that the 
international edition of the award existed prior to 2010. 2 
The Petitioner asserts that our statement regarding the existence of the award prior to 2010 is 
"completely wrong" and that he "truly received .. ) I Award in the year 2005." The Petitioner 
has misconstrued our determination regarding this award. The record reflects his receipt of a "Prize 
I 12005," but we determined that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support his 
claim that this prize was a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence in his 
1 Regarding motions to reopen or reconsider, 8 C.F.R. § 103 .5(a)(l )(ii) states in relevant part: "The official having 
jurisdiction is the official who made the la test decision in the proceeding unless the affected party moves to a new 
jurisdiction ." The latest decision was our February 12, 2020, decision dismissing the Petitioner's tenth motion. Therefore, 
a review of any claims or assertions that the Petitioner's instant motion raises is limited in scope and is restricted to that 
decision. 
2 
The Petitioner submitted a certificate issued b...=In=s=tit=u=t ,___ __ =in-'-'2=0a..ala..al.,_c"""onfirming his receipt of "the Prize._! __ ...., 
2005 in the categonJ b by practicing etitionerclairned his a ward was an 
"Intemationall I Award. " The record reflects that the "International Award " is a different a ward issued 
by the same institution and does not contain evidence of its issuance prior to 2010. 
2 
field. 3 Our determination that his 20051 I award is not the same as an "International~I --~ 
Award," is based on evidence in the record indicating that the international edition of the award was 
first presented in 2010. We never made a determination that the Petitioner did not receive anl I 
award in 2005. 
The Petitioner disagrees with our determination that there is insufficient evidence to establish that his 
2005 award from thd I Institute is a qualifying nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award, or a qualifying one-time achievement. However, he has not established how we incorrectly 
applied the law or users policy by reaching that determination or by dismissing his previous motion. 
The Petitioner also contends that we made a "sad mistake" in our decision dated February 12, 2020, 
noting that we stated on page 3 that "the only appeal filed by the Petitioner was on October 7, 2013." 
He emphasizes that elsewhere we "said exactly the opposite," noting that our decision stated on page 
2 that we had issued nine motion decisions between 2014 and 2019. Based on these statements, the 
Petitioner asserts that "it looks like ... AAO ignored all the important motions between 2014 and 
2019." 
In his prior motion, the Petitioner argued that he had received incorrect correspondence from us 
inf mming him that we did not have a record of a pending appeal with our office. Moreover, he 
requested that we inform the Director that he has a pending appeal in order to maintain his pending 
status relating to his Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. m 
support of his prior motion to reopen, the Petitioner submitted copies of our November 2018 
correspondence and the Director's October 2018 decision dismissing his motion to reconsider the 
denial of his Fmm I-485. 
In adjudicating the motion to reopen, we concluded that the Petitioner did not demonstrate how his 
newly submitted evidence (the November 2018 correspondence and the Director's October 2018 
decision) related to our prior decision denying his ninth motion filing. 4 Moreover, the Petitioner did 
not show how the correspondence and the Form I-485 decision established his eligibility as an 
individual of extraordinary ability under section 203(b)(l )(A) of Act. Accordingly, we dismissed the 
motion to reopen. 
With the current motion to reconsider, the Petitioner has not articulated an argument that we 
misapplied the law or users policy by dismissing his prior motion to reopen. Moreover, the record 
reflects that the Petitioner has filed only one appeal of the denial of his Form I-140, and that we have 
adjudicated all ten of his previous motions and did not "ignore" them as claimed in the current motion. 
Although appeals and motions are both filed on Form I-2 90B, they are separate proceedings governed 
by separate regulations and the terms are not used interchangeably. We did not err by stating that the 
Petitioner has only filed one appeal. 
3 In our decision dated February 4.2019, we acknowledged that the Director determined in his 2012 decision that the 
Petitioner's j !Award" qualified as a nationally recognized award. We explained why the record did not support 
this determination. 
4 We also observed that the record did notsupportthe Petitioner's claim thatthe November2018 correspondence from our 
office was incorrect. We noted that the only appeal filed by the Petitioner was the one filed onOctober7. 2013, which we 
dismissed on July 25,2014. In addition, we emphasized that any issues relating to his Form 1-485 should be addressed in 
a separate proceeding to the Director, as we do nothavejurisdictionoverhis adjustment of status application. 
3 
In the remainder of his brief on motion, the Petitioner refers to previously submitted evidence of his 
professional achievements and asserts that he established his eligibility for classification as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. He requests that we "look at the hundreds of documents, 
translations, letters of authorities, evidence and facts." However, he makes no additional allegations 
that we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS policy in our February 12, 2020 decision dismissing his 
tenth motion. The Petitioner's conclusory statements that he satisfies the "nationally or internationally 
recognized prizes or awards" criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i) and is othe1wise qualified for the 
requested classification, and his repetition of arguments he previously made in support of his appeal 
and prior motions, do not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
Moreover, the Petitioner's request that we conduct a de novo review of the entire record is not properly 
before us on motion and is outside the scope of this proceeding, which is limited to a review of our 
most recent prior decision. We have previously conducted a de novo review of this matter, thoroughly 
analyzed the Petitioner's evidence, and concluded that he met only two of the regulatory criteria at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), of which he must meet at least three in order to satisfy the initial evidence 
requirements for this classification. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not established that our prior decision, dated February 12, 
2020, was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy, or that it was incorrect based on 
the evidence in the record at the time. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
4