dismissed EB-1A Case: Education

.
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF A-0-R-D-L-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: MAR. 24,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a former professor at seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in education. 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 recogqized in their field through extensive 
documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, and two subsequent motions. The Petitioner appealed the matter to us. We dismissed the 
Petitioner's appeal, and reaffirmed that decision in five motion adjudications. The Petitioner has 
filed a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
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(~)(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. USC!S, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. 
Wash. 2011), aff'd, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter o(Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding 
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 detennine whether the fact to be proven is probably 
true"). 
Matter of A-0-R-D-L-
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). In addition, a motion to reconsider must be 
supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or 
statement ofUSCIS or Department of Homeland Security policy. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In our previous decision denying his fifth motion, we determined that the Petitioner did not state any 
new facts and his evidence did not overcome the grounds of denial from our prior decision. 
Specifically, we found that the Petitioner's argument that we never requested additional evidence or 
afforded him the opportunity to personally explain his situation did not meet the requirements of a 
motion to reopen. In addition, we concluded that his submission of an inquiry response from the 
Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman did not demonstrate his eligibility 
for classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
The Petitioner contends in support of his current inotion that we misapplied and misinterpreted the 
law and cites to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) and Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 
(1886). Zadvydas involved the indefinite detention of immigrants, and Yick Wo involved a 
discriminatory statute. He does not, however, establish how those cases relate to the issues in our 
prior decision. 
In addition, the Petitioner summarizes his documentary evidence for the regulatory criteria and 
requests that we review his documentation again. A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect 
application law or policy. 8.C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A request to reanalyze documentation without 
showing how we incorrectly applied law or policy does not meet the requirements of a motion to 
reconsider. Moreover, as discussed in our previous decisions, we thoroughly analyzed the 
Petitioner's documentation and concluded that he only met two of the regulatory criteria, of which 
he must meet at least three. 
The Petitioner also points out that oral arguments are allowed on motion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 1 03.5(a)(7). However, USCIS has sole authority to grant or deny a request for oral argument, and 
the Petitioner has not identified any unique factors or issues of law that cannot be adequately 
addressed in writing. Accordingly, the request for oral argument is denied. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(b). 
Finally, the Petitioner submits an academic evaluation of his transcripts and degrees. However, he 
did not demonstrate how the submission of his educational credentials demonstrates error in our 
previous decision in order to meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. Even if we 
considered his educational documents in a motion to reopen, which is based on documentary 
evidence of new facts, he did not show how it relates to the evidentiary criteria listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
2 
Matter of A-0-R-D-L-
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that we incorrectly applied law or USCIS policy in our prior 
decision. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of A-0-R-D-L-, ID# 331324 (AAO Mar. 24, 2017)