dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-X-
Non· Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 15, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a clinical investigator, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
education. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(1)(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 of the Texas Service Center revoked the approval of the petition, concluding that the 
Petitioner had not satisfied the initial evidence requirements set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), 
which require documentation of a one-time achievement or evidence that meets at least three of the 
10 regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)(-(x). We upheld the decision on appeal.
1 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reopen and reconsider our previous decision. On motion, 
the Petitioner submits additional documentation; asserting that the record resolves the discrepancies 
noted previously and demonstrates that he meets at least three criteria for this classification under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 
Upon de novo review, we will deny the joint motion to reopen and reconsider. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to reconsider are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. 
9 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability. 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 a 
1 Our most recent decision in this maller is Matter of H-X-, ID# 466601 (AAO Nov. 9, 20 17) 
Matter of H-X-
one-time achievement (that is a major, internationally recognized award). Alternatively, he or she 
must provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) (including items such as awards, memberships, and published material 
in certain media). Where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we 
will 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. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (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). 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our prior decision, following receipt of the Petitioner's response to our notice of intent to dismiss 
(NOID), we upheld the Director's decision revoking the approval of the Petitioner's Form 1-140 
petition. We held that the petition was properly revoked because the record did not reflect that the 
Petitioner met at least three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Section 205 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1155, provides that "[t]he Attorney General [now Secretary, Department of Homeland Security], 
may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any 
petition approved by him under section 204." The realization by the Director that the petition was 
approved in error may be good and sufficient cause for revoking the approval. Matter of Ho, 19 
I&N Dec. 582, 590 (BIA 1988). 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law 
or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at 
the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
A motion to reconsider must be supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or 
regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or 
Department of Homeland Security policy. The Petitioner does not cite binding precedent decisions 
or other legal authority establishing that we or the director incorrectly applied the pertinent law or 
agency policy and that the prior decisions were erroneous based on the evidence of record at the 
time. Therefore, he has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We interpret "new facts" to mean facts that are relevant to the issue(s) raised on 
motion and that have not been previously submitted in the proceeding, which includes the original 
petition. Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not 
constitute "new facts." Here, the majority of the evidence the Petitioner submits on motion was 
submitted previously and does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen. 
2 
.
Matter of H-X- . 
In our previ ous decision, we held that the Petiti one r met only the scholarly articles cri terion at 8 
C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). On motion, the Petiti oner claims that he meets t he following criteria: 
awards at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), member ship under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)( ii), publish ed materia l 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), judging und er 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) , contributions o f m ajor 
significance under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) , and displa y und er 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). 
However , on motion, the Petiti oner has not submitted new evidence related to any of the claimed 
eligibility criteria, save members hip under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 2 
The Petitioner asserts that his membership with the requi res 
outstanding achievements of its members. The Petitio ner submits the bylaws for the which 
indicate that a person must be nominated in writing by two member s of the societ y. Section 3 of the 
bylaw s indicates that memb ers must have certain educ ational or experienti al b ackgrou nds in 
chemical scie nces for admission , but this does not demonstrate that outstanding achievements are 
required for membership. The Petit ioner has not estab lished that he meets this criterion. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petition er has not demonstrated that he meets at leas t thre e of the criteri a under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The moti on to reconsider is denied becau se the Petitioner has not esta blished 
that our previous findings were based on an incorrect application of the law, regul ation, or USCIS 
policy. The motion to reopen i s denied becau se the new evidence the Petitioner submitted does not 
establish that he meets the initi al 
requirements for the classific ation sought, nor has he resol ved all 
the incon sis tencies describ ed in our prior decision . 
ORDER: The motion to reco nsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reope n is denied. 
Cite as Matt er of H-X- , ID# 1227778 (AAO June 15, 201 8) 
2 The Petiti o ner also submitted new evidence related to discre pancies in the record that we noted in o ur previous 
decision. While the new eviden ce overcomes concerns related to the Petiti oner's authorship of an artic le o n monokines, 
we had already found he has established eligibi lity under the scho larly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v i). 
The other evidence submitted r elated to discrepancies th~ t did not relate to eligihili ty criteria; theref ore, we will not 
consider them here. 
3