dismissed EB-1A Case: Ecology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT 30, 2024 In Re: 34894441 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a project manager who wants to make eco-friendly products in the United States, seeks 
classification under the employment-based, first-preference immigrant visa category as a noncitizen 
with "extraordinary ability." See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(l)(A). Successful petitioners for U.S. permanent residence in this category must 
demonstrate "sustained national or international acclaim" and extensively document their 
achievements in their fields. Id. 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, and we dismissed the Petitioner's 
appeal and following motion to reopen. See In Re: 31839590 (AAO July 3, 2024). We affirmed the 
Director's conclusion that the Petitioner's proof met none of the requested category's ten initial 
evidentiary requirements - three less than required for a final merits determination. Id. 
The matter returns to us on a second motion to reopen. The Petitioner bears the burden of 
demonstrating eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we conclude that his new proof does 
not satisfy at least three evidentiary criteria. We will therefore dismiss the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
Our review on motion is limited to our latest decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i), (ii) (referencing "the 
prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding"). We may grant motions that satisfy these 
requirements and demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit. See Matter ofCoelho, 20 I&N Dec. 
464,473 (BIA 1992) (requiring new evidence to potentially change the case's outcome) . 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner submits a copy of a 2017 letter from a Russian gold mining company. In part, the letter 
recognizes the Petitioner for his work in helping to set up the company's "booth" at an international 
economic forum. The letter praises his "individual approach to each member, creative approach to 
accomplishment of assignments and prompt response to requests." 
The Petitioner does not specify which evidentiary criteria he believes the letter meets or helps to meet. 
But the letter does not satisfy, or help to satisfy, any of the following requirements he previously 
claimed to have met: 
A. Nationally or Internationally Recognized Awards 
This criterion requires "[d]ocumentation of the [ non citizen]' s receipt of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i). 
The letter from the gold mining company does not establish the Petitioner's receipt of a prize or award. 
The letter praises the Petitioner's work. But the letter does not state his receipt of a prize or constitute 
an award. See Guida v. Miller, No. 20-cv-01471-LB, 2021 WL 568850, *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2021) 
( ( affirming USCIS' finding that evidence of a petitioner's team placing fifth or ninth in a competition 
or qualifying to compete in another event was not evidence of "awards"). 
Also, the Petitioner has not established that he received the letter for excellence in his field. The record 
does not explain how helping a mining company establish its booth at an economic forum relates to 
his stated field of ecology. See Krasniqi v. Dibbins, 558 F.Supp.3d 168, 183-84 (D.N.J. 2021) (holding 
that an award honoring a filmmaker for promoting human rights does not constitute an award for 
excellence in their field). 
Further, the letter from the gold mining company does not otherwise help the Petitioner to meet this 
criterion. He previously submitted evidence of his receipt of a "certificate of merit" from a Russian 
ministry. The record does not indicate that the letter relates to the Petitioner's certificate. The letter 
therefore neither meets nor helps to meet this evidentiary criterion. 
B. Membership in Associations 
To meet this requirement, a petitioner must submit "[ d]ocumentation of the [ noncitizen] '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." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The letter from the gold mining company does not indicate the Petitioner's membership in an 
association. Also, the letter does not appear to relate to the organization in which he previously 
demonstrated his membership. The letter therefore does not meet or help to meet this evidentiary 
requirement. 
C. Remaining Issues 
The motion's 
evidence does not satisfy two of the four criteria that the Petitioner has claimed. Thus, 
he cannot meet three evidentiary criteria, as required for a final merits determination. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3). We therefore reserve consideration of whether the letter from the gold mining company 
meets the evidentiary criteria regarding published material about him and original contributions of 
major significance. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), (v); see also INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 
2 
( 1976) (stating that agencies need not make "purely advisory findings" on issues unnecessary to their 
ultimate decisions). 
The remainder of the Petitioner's motion to reopen discusses evidence already ofrecord. Contrary to 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2), this portion of the motion does not state "new facts." Thus, it does not meet 
regulatory requirements for motions to reopen, and we will not consider it. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3