dismissed EB-1A Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 29, 2023 In Re : 27544973 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer , seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability. See 
Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(l)(A) . 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Form 1-140 petition, concluding the Petitioner 
did not establish that he satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements through evidence of a one-time 
achievement or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We 
dismissed the Petitioner's appeal. The matter is now before us on motion to reopen. The Petitioner 
bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence . Matter of 
Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the motion. 
While we may not individually discuss each piece of evidence the Petitioner submits with his current 
motion, we have reviewed and considered each one . We incorporate our prior decision by reference 
and will repeat only certain facts as necessary. In our appellate decision, we agreed with the Director 
that the Petitioner did not submit the required initial evidence of either a one-time achievement or 
documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria . 1 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2) . Our review on motion is limited to reviewing our latest decision. 8 C.F .R. 
§ 103.5(a)(l)(ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 l&N Dec . 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
Regarding the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the Petitioner maintains that he received 
a Red Dot award . The evidence indicates that this award was given to thel !Portable charging 
device and the company that designed it. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he was named as a 
recipient of a Red Dot award. He also points to various student awards he claims to have received, 
but his motion does not include evidence indicating that they are nationally or internationally 
recognized awards for excellence in the field electrical engineering. Without further evidence 
1 We determined that the Petitioner did not fulfill the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) , the judging criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(iv) , and the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3)(v) . The Petitioner did not 
claim to meet any other criteria on appeal. 
regarding their national or international significance in his field, the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that his claimed awards are nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards for excellence in 
the field. 
As evidence for the judging criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the Petitioner points to his graduate 
and undergraduate courses, practical training, and work for both .___________ ___, The 
documentation presented, however, does not demonstrate that the Petitioner has participated, either 
individually or on a panel, as the judge of the work of others in the field of electrical engineering or 
an allied field. 
With respect to the original contributions criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), the Petitioner offers 
documentation of his work involving development of a "high tech chip I I process, an I I 
prototype" battery module, a 'l !pressure theory," water and lighting infrastructure, and 
I I lamps. The Petitioner's descriptions and photographs of his work are not sufficient to 
demonstrate its major significance in the field of electrical engineering. The Petitioner's statements 
do not offer sufficiently detailed information, nor does the record include adequate corroborating 
documentation, to show the nature of specific "original contributions" that he has made to the field 
that have been considered to be of "major significance." For instance, he did not offer evidence 
indicating that his prototypes and other developmental work have influenced the field of electrical 
engineering to the extent that they are of major significance in his field. 
The Petitioner also provides new arguments and evidence under the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), the leading or critical 
role criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the high salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
However, as the Petitioner did not submit these documents before the Director, either at the time he 
filed the petition or in response to the Director's request for evidence, we will not consider these claims 
and documents in our adjudication of this motion. See Matter ofSoriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 
1988) (providing that if "the petitioner was put on notice of the required evidence and given a 
reasonable opportunity to provide it for the record before the denial, we will not consider evidence 
submitted on appeal for any purpose" and that "we will adjudicate the appeal based on the record of 
proceedings" before the Chief); see also Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec 533 (BIA 1988). The 
Petitioner does not adequately explain why he did not present these documents before the Director. 
Accordingly, we will not consider this evidence to determine his eligibility under the applicable 
criteria for the first time on motion. 
Regardless, even if we were to consider the Petitioner's new arguments and evidence, none of his 
documents offered on motion meet the requirements of the regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (vi), (viii), and (ix). For example, the Petitioner contends that his involvement in 
developing a University ofl lsolar powered electric vehicle, a I I charging 
device, al ILamp, and al Icyber series lamp satisfy the membership criterion at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). This documentation, however, does not constitute evidence of association 
memberships. Without evidence indicating that the Petitioner is a member of an association requiring 
outstanding achievements and that admission to membership is judged by recognized national or 
international experts, the Petitioner has not established that he meets the requirements of the 
membership criterion. As evidence for the scholarly articles criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), 
the Petitioner submitted a December 2015 '-----------------------' 
2 
Laboratory Final Report" he authored, but the documentation does not indicate that the article was in 
a professional or major trade publication or other form of major media as required by the criterion. 
With respect to the leading or critical role criterion at 8 C.F .R. § 204.S(h) 3 viii , the Petitioner points 
to his product line setup and invoice system forl !lights and lights. He also 
discusses his work relating to the I I wireless charger, the.__ ______ __. plasma process, 
and the I I Lamp prototype. The Petitioner's evidence, however, does not show that his 
involvement in these projects demonstrates a leading or critical role for a distinguished organization. 
As evidence for the salary criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix), the Petitioner provided 
documentation relating to his interviews with Intel and NerdPower, invitations from prospective 
employers, a scholarship froml IPharmaceutical Production Company, and bank loans. 
This documentation, however, does not show that the Petitioner has commanded a high salary or 
significantly high remuneration relative to other electrical engineers. 
The evidence on motion does not overcome our prior findings and demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility. 
The Petitioner has not satisfied the initial evidentiary requirements through evidence of a one-time 
achievement or meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Nor has the 
Petitioner provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the appeal. The scope of a 
motion is limited to "the prior decision" and "the latest decision in the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(i), (ii). We will not re-adjudicate the petition anew. The underlying petition remains 
denied. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
3