dismissed EB-1A Case: Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6248839 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : MAR. 5, 2020 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a testing and commissioning engineer, seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. 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 of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner had satisfied at least three of ten initial evidentiary criteria, as required. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal from that decision. The matter is now before us on a combined 
motion to reopen and reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss both motions. 
I. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be proved in the reopened proceeding and be supported 
by affidavits or other documentary evidence . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must 
state the reasons for reconsideration and establish that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence 
of record at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). A motion that does not meet 
applicable requirements shall be dismissed . 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Under the above regulations, a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and 
a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reopen or reconsider to instances 
where the Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action . Thus, to merit reopening or 
reconsideration, a petitioner must not only meet the formal filing requirements (such as submission of 
a properly completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show 
proper cause for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable 
requirements. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. LAW 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act makes immigrant visas available to aliens with extraordinary ability 
if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work m the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively the 
United States. 
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). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis. First, 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 they must 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 such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether 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). 
III. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reopen 
On motion, the Petitioner identifies no new facts and submits no affidavits or other documentary 
evidence. 1 (A new, unsworn personal statement from the Petitioner is not an affidavit, and the 
statement mostly repeats a previously submitted statement.) We will dismiss the motion to reopen 
because it does not meet the requirements of such a motion. 
1 The brief on motion includes references to "new evidence," but these references, like much of the brief: are copied from 
the brief the Petitioner previously submitted on appeal. The brief identifies no evidence that was not already in the record 
at the time of the appeal. 
2 
B. Motion to Reconsider 
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received a major, internationally 
recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 2 The Petitioner previously claimed to have met six criteria, summarized 
below: 
• (i), Lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or awards; 
• (ii), Membership in associations that require outstanding achievements; 
• (iv), Participation as a judge of the work of others; 
• (v), Original contributions of major significance; 
• (viii), Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations or establishments; and 
• (ix), High remuneration for services. 
In our appellate decision, we agreed with the Director's determination that the Petitioner had not met 
any of the claimed criteria. On motion, the Petitioner does not dispute our finding regarding (iv), 
judging the work of others, but maintains that he satisfied the other five claimed criteria. 
For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the Petitioner has not adequately addressed the stated 
grounds for dismissal of the appeal, and has not established good cause for reconsideration. 
Documentation of the alien '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 Petitioner's then-employerJ l named him "Most Outstanding Employee of the Year" for 
2008. In our prior decision, we acknowledged this recognition, but we determined that the Petitioner 
did not show that this certificate is a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for 
excellence in his field of endeavor. 
On motion, the Petitioner repeats a section of the appellate brief pertaining to the above award. 
Because that brief predated our appellate decision, language from that brief cannot serve to identify 
errors of law or fact in the appellate decision. 
Previously submitted information indicates that l lhas partnered with industry experts on major 
infrastructure projects" around the world. International activity by the company, however, does not 
establish that a prize that is only available tol 11>:mployees is, itself, internationally recognized. 3 
2 Apart rrom the ten regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), the Petitioner asserts that he will continue to work in the 
area of extraordinary ability, as required by section 203(b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act. This was not a basis for dismissal ofthe 
appeal, and therefore the Petitioner does not establish enor by raising the issue on motion. 
3 When evaluating a prize or award, we may take into consideration any limitations on competitors (an award limited to 
competitors rrom a single institution, for example, may have little national or international significance). See USCTS 
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 ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), http://www.uscis.gov/ 
legal-resources/po !icy-memoranda. 
3 
The language of the criterion requires national or international recognition of the prize or award, as 
distinct from the reputation or recognition of the awarding entity. 
The Petitioner has not shown that we erred in determining that he did not satisfy this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien'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 Petitioner asserts that his membership in the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers (PSME) 
meets the requirements of this criterion. In our appellate decision, we quoted PSME's own website, 
which indicated that membership was open to all "professional mechanical engineers, mechanical 
engineers, and certified plant mechanics" who registered and paid the required fees. We also found 
that "the Petitioner did not establish that membership is judged by recognized national or international 
experts." 
On motion, as above, the Petitioner repeats the language from the appellate brief: and does not address 
the information we cited in our appellate decision. The Petitioner has not shown that we erred in our 
appellate decision. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
On motion, the Petitioner again uses language copied from his appellate brief. In that brief, he asserts 
that he satisfied this criterion, but does not identify any specific contributions or explain their 
significance. Instead, the Petitioner states that the necessary information is in "[ n ]umerous reference 
letters" in the record. 
We previously addressed and quoted from those reference letters in our appellate decision. We stated: 
"While the letters applaud the Petitioner's personal and job abilities, they do not identify original 
contributions that he has made to the field, nor do they explain how his contributions have been of 
major significance." 
On motion, the Petitioner does not address or acknowledge our discussion of the letters, and therefore 
does not reveal any errors in that discussion. 
Evidence that the alien has performed in a leading or critical rolefor organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) 
On appeal, the Petitioner stated that letters from his previous employers established that his "role ... 
was of significantly greater importance than that of the numerous other employees in the same field." 
After examining these letters, we concluded: "Although the letters confirm the Petitioner's 
employment, they do not demonstrate that he performed in a leading or critical role for any of the 
4 
companies." We provided quotations to support that conclusion. We also noted that "the letters do 
not contain information demonstrating that [the companies] have a distinguished reputation." 
On motion, the Petitioner repeats language from the appellate brief, which does not address our 
findings. The Petitioner also adds a new sentence: "Several recommenders also comment and 
supported the Petitioner's development and leading and critical role in their organizations." This is a 
general statement that summarizes prior claims and does not identify any specific error oflaw or policy 
in our prior appellate decision. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high sala,y or other significantly high 
remuneration for services, in relation to others in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserted that we should accept "his previously submitted Confirmation Letter 
of Salary from petitioner's supervisor." We identified deficiencies in this letter, and concluded that the 
Petitioner "did not provide comparative wage data of other testing engineers" or otherwise submit 
documentary evidence that would allow a meaningful comparison of his remuneration to that of others in 
the same field. 
On motion, rather than address the identified deficiencies in the letter, the Petitioner repeats the section 
of his appellate brief that asked us to take that same letter into consideration. Repetition of prior assertions 
does not rebut our responses to those assertions. Repeating or restating the arguments from the appellate 
brief: without addressing or acknowledging the findings we have already made about those arguments, 
cannot form a basis for reconsideration of our appellate decision. The motion does not meet the 
requirements of a motion to reconsider, and will be dismissed for that reason. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed, the Petitioner has not shown proper cause for reopening or reconsideration 
and has not overcome the grounds for dismissal of the appeal. The motion to reopen and motion to 
reconsider will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
5