dismissed EB-1A Case: Dream Psychology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-K-B-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: AUG. 29,2016 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a dream expert, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the 
field of dream psychology. 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. 
The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the petitiOn. The Director concluded that the 
Petitioner satisfied one of the regulatory criteria, of which three are required to establish eligibility. 
On appeal, we made similar findings and reaffirmed them in two subsequent decisions on motion. 
The matter is now before us on a third motion to reopen. In her motion, the Petitioner submits 
additional evidence and maintains that she meets two additional criteria as she has judged the work 
of others and served in a leading or critical role for an organization or establishment with a 
distinguished reputation. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided and be supported by affidavits or other 
documentary evidence. 1 As noted in our previous decisions, however, the new facts must 
demonstrate eligibility as of the date of filing; a petition cannot be approved at a future date after a 
Petitioner becomes eligible under a new set of facts.2 Motions for the reopening of immigration 
proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for rehearing and motions for a new 
1 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
2 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14l&N Dec. 45,49 (Reg'! Comm'r 1971); see also Matter of!zummi, 
22 l&N Dec. 169, 175 (Assoc. Comm 'r 1998) adopting the holding in Matter of Bardouille, 18 l&N Dec. 114 (BIA 
1981 ), that USC IS cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." !d. at 176. 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-K-B-
trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. 3 A party seeking to reopen a proceeding _bears a 
"heavy burden. "4 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Director previously found that the record contains published material about the Petitioner in 
major media5 and we agreed with that determination. At issue in the Petitioner's motions is whether 
the Petitioner meets another two criteria. 6 In our most recent decision, which the Petitioner seeks to 
reopen, we considered her affirmations that she met the judging and leading or critical role criteria. 7 
First, with respect to participating as a judge, we noted that .the new letter from 
board chair and former president of the 
did not suggest that the Petitioner had performed the services described in the letter as of the 
filing date. We also stated that did not detail what duties the Petitioner performed that 
constitute judging the work of others in the same or a related field. Second, we similarly found that 
did not support his conclusory statement that the Petitioner performs a leading or 
critical role for with a sufficient explanation of her impact on the entity as of the date of filing. 
Further, we reiterated the finding from previous decisions that the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
the distinguished reputation of Finally, we explained that general, solicited letters from local 
colleagues do not qualify as comparable evidence to confirm eligibility. 8 On motion, the Petitioner 
offers a new letter from which she maintains clarifies her involvement with as of 
2011, well before she filed the petition. She also documents a new television appearance. For the 
reasons discussed below, the Petitioner has not established that she met more than one criterion as of 
the date of filing. 
A. Participation as a Judge of the Work of Others 
The relevant criterion requires evidence of the foreign national's participation, either individually or 
on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field of specialization for which 
classification is sought.9 The Petitioner relies on the new letter from to show that she 
had performed as a judge prior to date of filing. He does not, however, state that the Petitioner was 
the site administrator prior to the filing date in January 2014. Rather, he confirms that she currently 
serves in that role and has been involved with in some capacity since 2011. 
3 INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). 
4 /d. at 110. 
5 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
6 According to the implementing regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), a petitioner must have a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award) or 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 su_ch as awards, published material in 
certain media, and scholarly articles). 
7 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h(3)(iv), (viii). 
8 The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4) allows a petitioner to rely on comparable evidence where the regulatory 
standards at subparagraph (h)(3) do not readily apply to her occupation. 
9 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
2 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-K-B-
Moreover, the new letter does not resolve that, as site administrator, the Petitioner serves as a judge 
of the work of others. While · affirms that the 
has approved online courses for continuing education for licensed therapists, he has 
still not sufficiently explained how the Petitioner, as site administrator, judges the work of others in 
her field or an allied field.· reiterates his prior statement that the Petitioner "oversees, 
grades, and judges the work of students." Although our previous decision noted the lack of detail 
regarding the nature of the Petitioner's judging responsibilities, he does not offer any specifics in his 
new letter.10 A list of available courses from website, which the Petitioner supplied with her 
second motion, does not support a finding that the Petitioner is responsible for judging the work of 
students. Many ofthe course descriptions suggest they are not graded. For example, the first course 
listed is a mentored course consisting of a presentation by who will provide 
"feedback" to students' required forum postings. Other courses appear to be rebroadcasts of 
symposiums at earlier conferences. In addition, none of the courses list the Petitioner as the 
presenter or. teacher. Regardless, the routine grading of assignments by teachers does not constitute 
performing as a judge of the work of others as contemplated by the regulation; not every teacher 
participates as "a judge" simply by working as a teacher. 11 For the above reasons, the new evidence 
supporting this motion does not establish that the Petitioner satisfies this criterion. 
B. Leading or Critical Role 
The relevant regulation requires evidence that the foreign national has performed in a leading or 
critical role for organizations or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 12 We 
previously concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that she served as the site administrator for 
as of the date of filing or that enjoys a distinguished reputation. In his new letter, 
does not confirm that the Petitioner was site administrator prior to the date of filing 
in 2014. Rather, he discusses her role in scheduling a conference in 2016 and describes his future 
plans for her skills. This information does not address whether the Petitioner had performed in a 
leading or critical role for as of January 2014. 
10 The O*Net website, prepared for the Department of Labor, provides the normal duties for web administrators. They 
include: (1) backing up or modifying applications and related data to provide for disaster recovery; (2) determining 
sources of web page or server problems, and taking action to correct such problems; (3) reviewing or updating web page 
content or links in a timely manner, using appropriate tools; (4) monitoring systems for intrusions or denial of service 
attacks, and reporting security breaches to appropriate personnel; and (5) implementing web site security measures, such 
as firewalls or message encryption. See http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1199.03#Tasks, accessed July I 9, 
2016, and incorporated into the record of proceeding. While we acknowledge may assign duties that are different 
or additional to those typical of a site administrator, it is the Petitioner's burden to corroborate general 
statements with detailed evidence. 
11 USCIS offers serving on a Ph.D. dissertation committee as an example of qualifying evidence rather than suggesting 
every instructor, teacher, or professor meets this criterion. USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, Evaluation of 
Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 
22.2, AFM Update ADII-14 8 (Dec. 22, 2010), https://www.uscis.gov/laws/policy-memoranda. 
12 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
3 
(b)(6)
Matter of A-K-B-
does confirm that the Petitioner "has been an active member of since 2011, and 
has presented in two major symposiums at regional and annual conferences and also played a key 
role in organizing the regional conference in does not, however, 
identify what the Petitioner's duties were for the regional conference in We 
previously considered an email notice from a regional representative of 
affirming that the Petitioner "was an active part of the organizing committee for the 
Regional Conference in We found in our appellate decision that this information did 
not detail the nature of the Petitioner's role and that she had not established the reputation of the 
committee for which she performed this role. does not provide any new facts not 
present in email correspondence. As stated in our most recent decision on 
motion, merely repeating the language of the statute or regulations does not satisfy the Petitioner's 
burden of proof. 13 Similarly, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 14 The record 
does not corroborate the nature of the Petitioner's role for as a whole by serving on this single 
committee. 
Finally, the Petitioner did not provide any new evidence documenting the distinguished reputation of 
Confirmation from that it offers ·approved continuing education courses does not 
constitute independent corroboration of its distinguished reputation in the field. For the above 
reasons, the new exhibits on motion do not demonstrate that the Petitioner has served in a leading or 
critical role for an organization or establishment with a distinguished reputation. 
C. Comparable Evidence 
The relevant regulation allows the Petitioner to provide comparable evidence where the regulatory 
criteria do not readily apply to her occupation. 15 In our previous decision, we reiterated that the 
Petitioner had not demonstrated that the criteria do not readily apply to her occupation and 
concluded that reference letters generally do not rise to the level of comparable evidence. On 
motion, the Petitioner does not explain which criteria, if any, do not readily apply to her occupation. 
She offers corroboration that she appeared on the The submitted 
documentation does not confirm that the Petitioner was on this show prior to the date of filing in 
January 2014.16 Moreover, we have already considered earlier television appearances under the 
published material criterion, a criterion she meets. Additional exhibits relating to that criterion do 
not constitute comparable evidence. Finally, the Petitioner once again references 
letter, in which he requests that we reconsider our decision and affirms that she will serve on 
board of directors in the future. As stated in our previous decision, solicited letters are generally not 
13 See Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F. 2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990); Avyr 
Associates, Inc. v. Meissner, 1997 WL 188942 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 
14 1756, Inc. v. USAtt'yGen., 745 F. Supp. 9,15 (D.D.C. 1990). 
15 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
16 As stated above, a petitioner must establish eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Katigbak, 
14 I&N Dec. at 49. 
4 
Matter of A-K-B-
comparable to the types of objective evidence otherwise required by the ten criteria.17 Accordingly, 
the Petitioner has not supplied persuasive comparable evidence. 
D. Summary 
The Petitioner has not filed a motion to reopen that is supported by new evidence documenting 
eligibility as of the date of filing. The new evidence does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has 
satisfied an additional two criteria. As the record continues to show that the Petitioner meets a single 
criterion, she has not established the necessary sustained national or international acclaim through 
extensive evidence.18 
III. CONCLUSION 
The motion will be denied for the above stated reasons, with each considered as an independent and 
alternate basis for the decision. In visa petition proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish 
eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of 
Otiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-K-B-, ID# 18062 (AAO Aug. 29, 2016) 
17 According to USC IS policy, general statements that any of the ten objective criteria do not readily apply to the foreign 
national's occupation are not probative and should be discounted. Similarly, statements that USCIS should accept 
witness letters as comparable evidence are not persuasive. A petitioner should explain why it has not submitted evidence 
that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence it has submitted 
is "comparabl~" to that required under 8 CFR 204.5(h)(3). USC IS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 12. 
18 Section 203(b)(l)(A) ofthe Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
5