dismissed EB-1A Case: Creativity And Public Policy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-E-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JAN. 12,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, who works in the field of "creativity as it relates to public policy," seeks 
classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 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 Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not satisfied any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. The 
Petitioner appealed the matter to us, and we dismissed the appeal, also finding that he had not met 
any of the evidentiary criteria. We then denied the Petitioner's subsequent two motions to 
reconsider. 
The matt~r is now before us on a third motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motion 
to reconsider. 
I. LAW 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). A petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time 
achievement (that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit 
this evidence, then he or she 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 submits qualifying 
evidence under at least three criteria, we will then determine whether the totality of 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. 1 
1 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 20 I 0) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first 
counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.O. 
Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 1&N Dec. 369, 376 (AA0.2010) (holding 
Matter of E-E-
A motion to reconsider must 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 
USCIS policy. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In order to properly file a motion, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii) requires that the 
motion must be "[a ]ccompanied by a statement about whether or not the validity of the unfavorable 
decision has been or is the subject of any judicial proceeding and, if so, the court, nature, date, and 
status or result of the proceeding." Furthermore, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4) requires 
that "[a] motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed." In this case, the 
Petitioner did not submit a statement indicating whether the validity of the decision has been, or is, 
subject of any judicial proceeding. 
Notwithstanding the above, the instant motion does not otherwise meet the requirements of a motion 
to reconsider. A motion to reconsider contests the correctness of the decision based on the previous 
factual record. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). The motion must demonstrate that the prior decision was 
incorrect based on the · evidence of record at the time. ld. It must state the reasons for 
reconsideration and cite any pertinent precedent to establish that the decision was based on an 
incorrect application of law or policy. Jd. On motion, we consider only arguments and evidence 
relating to the grounds underlying the most recent decision. In the instant filing, the Petitioner does 
not state that he met the requirements of a motion to reconsider in this last filing, but instead 
maintains that his previously submitted documentation satisfies at least three of the regulatory 
criteria. 
Regarding our most recent decision, a motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the 
decision that the motion seeks to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). For a decision received by 
. mail, we allow 33 days. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.8(b). We denied the Petitioner's first motion to 
reconsider on September 11, 2015. The Petitioner, however, submitted his second motion to 
reconsider on November 9, 2015, 59 days after our previous decision's issuance.2 Therefore, we 
denied the motion to reconsider as untimely filed. In addition, we found that the Petitioner had not 
established error in the underlying determination regarding his eligibility. 
In the instant motion, the Petitioner does not address the untimeliness of his previous motion to 
reconsider or contest the correctness of our decision in accordance with an improper application of 
that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative value, and credibility, both 
individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true"). 
2 The Petitioner's first attempt to file the motion to reconsider was rejected due to improper fees. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.7(b)(l)(i). We note, however, that he submitted this first attempt on October 16,2015,35 days after the previous 
decision, rendering it similarly untimely. 
2 
Matter of E-E-
law or USCIS policy. The motion to reconsider does not allege that the issues, as raised on the prior 
motion, involved the application of precedent to a novel situation, or that there is new precedent or a 
change in law that affects the denial of the previous motion. As noted above, a motion to reconsider 
must include specific allegations as to how we erred as a matter of fact or law in our prior decision, 
and it must be supported by pertinent legal authority. Because the Petitioner did not raise such 
allegations of error, we will deny the motion to reconsider. 
Furthermore, the Petitioner requests reconsideration of our initial decision dismissing his appeal 
based on "evidence submitted earlier in support of this petition." The Petitioner then discusses his 
evidence as it relates to: 1) published material in professional publications written by others about 
my work in~/the academic field,3 2) original scholarly research contributions in the field,4 3) 
authorship of scholarly books or articles in scholarly journals with international circulation in the 
field,5 4) performed a leading and critical role for organizations or establishments that have a 
distinguished reputation, 6 and 5) international recognition as being at the very top of the field of 
creativity in public policy. · 
The record of proceedings reflects that in each of our decisions we thoroughly analyzed the 
Petitioner's documentation and articulated the reasons why his evidence did not satisfy the 
evidentiary criteria. In the instant motion, the Petitioner does. not argue that our prior decision was 
incorrect based on the record at the time, nor does he cite any law, regulation, or precedent to 
support an improper application of law or USCIS policy. Instead, the Petitioner requests "a new 
determination." This request, however; does not meet the filing requirements for a motion to 
reconsider. 
Ill. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that we incorrectly applied law or USCIS policy in our prior 
decision. The Petitioner has not met his burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit 
sought. Section 291 ofthe Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 
2013). 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of E-E-, ID# 119715 (AAO Jan. 12, 2017) 
3 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
4 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
5 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
6 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
3