dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

(b)(6)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Services 
Office of Admini strative Appeals 
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. , MS 2090 
Washington , DC 20529-2090 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Date: JUN 2 5 Z014 Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER FILE: 
INRE: 
APPLICATION: 
Petitioner: 
Beneficiary: 
Immigrant Petition for AJien Worker as an AJien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. 
This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency 
policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to 
your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a 
motion to reopen, respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) 
within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at 
http:Uwww.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. 
See also 8 C.P.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. 
Thank you, 
~(~ 
Ron Rosenberg 
Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
www.uscis.gov 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition. On June 21, 
2013, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal. The AAO granted the 
subsequent motion to reopen and reconsider, but affirmed the decision after a full review on the merits. 
The matter is now before the AAO on a second motion to reopen and reconsider. The motion will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary ability pursuant to section 203(b )(1)(A) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(A) to practice law. The 
director determined that the petitioner has not established his eligibility as an alien of extraordinary 
ability. We reaffirmed that determination on appeal and again on motion and, in addition, concluded 
that the petitioner's occupation did not fall under one of the categories Congress described for the 
extraordinary ability classification. 
Regarding motions to reopen or reconsider, the regulation at 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(ii) states in relevant 
part: "The official having jurisdiction is the official who made the latest decision in the proceeding 
unless the affected party moves to a new jurisdiction." The latest decision was our November 29, 2013 
decision granting the initial motion to reopen and reconsider and reaffirming the bases for dismissing 
the appeal. Therefore, a successful motion must overcome our most recent decision. 
To the extent that the petitioner intends the current motion to be a motion to reopen, motions for the 
reopening of immigration proceedings are disfavored for the same reasons as are petitions for rehearing 
and motions for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 
323 (1992)(citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988)). A party seeking to reopen a proceeding bears a 
"heavy burden." Abudu, 485 U.S. at 110. A motion to reopen must state the new facts to be provided 
and be supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
To the extent that the petitioner intends the current motion to be a motion to reconsider, a motion to 
reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent precedent 
decisions to establish that the original decision was based on an incorrect application of law or 
USCIS policy. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). In essence, a motion to reconsider contests the correctness of 
the original decision based on the previous factual record, as opposed to a motion to reopen which 
seeks a new hearing based on new evidence. . Compare 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3) and 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). · 
Motion to Reopen 
In support of the motion to reopen, the petitioner submits evidence to establish that his area of expertise 
or his duties as a lawyer fall under the purview of "business" or "education," pursuant to the statutory 
requirement that an alien demonstrate "extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or 
athletics." 203(b )(1)(A) of the Act. In addition, the petitioner submits evidence in support of the 
criteria for membership, scholarly articles, and leading or critical role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), (vi), and (viii). 
As an initial matter, to demonstrate that he is an alien of extraordinary ability in education and/or 
business, the petitions submits the following evidence: (1) a Notice of Certification from the New York 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 3 
State Board of Law Examiners; (2) a Bachelor in International Economic Law diploma in English from 
the (3) a certificate in Chinese; (4) a Master of Law (LLM) in 
Transnational Business Practice diploma from the 
(5) an April 22, 2010 release from the 
the school's oro2:rams: (7) a orinted webpage from 
the and (9) a letter from the 
·elating to ranking results of some of 
(8) a printed webpage from 
The record also contains the petitioner's Doctor of Juridical Sciences (S.J.D) from 
Items (1 )-( 4) in the numbered list that relate to his educational and professional credentials are not new 
evidence. Such evidence demonstrates his past training in a specialty area of law, but the petitioner has 
not established that his current legal practice and expertise fall under the purview of "business" or 
''education." In support of his assertion that his S.J.D. degree is geared primarily to those intending to 
pursue a career in academia, the petitioner submitted printed webpages from and 
school of law with information regarding the S.J.D. program at t eir 
respective institutions. The petitioner did not receive his S.J.D. from either of those law schools. 
Reg~:miless, the fact that "most" of S.J.D. graduates from will secure teaching positions or that 
the program is "geared primarily to those intending to pursue a career in academia" does not 
demonstrate that the petitioner, who has indicated only that he will practice law, sought to come to the 
United States to teach at the time he filed his petition in 2010. The petitioner has not submitted 
evidence indicating that he is seeking or that he has procured a position as a law school professor or 
other position that falls within the purview of "education. " The petitioner submits a letter from the 
.ndicating that he has been appointed to a volunteer term as a board member for 
hls law schoof' s alumni association. Such an appointment is not an academic teaching appointment at 
the law school and does not fall within the purview of"education." 
As new evidence pertaining to the regulatory criterion for membership under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
the petitioner submitted a printed webpage from the official website of the about the 
summer program and the printed weboage from the same website listing the members of the 
Curatorium, the scientific board of the The petitioner is not 
listed as a member. Rather, the record contains evidence that the petitioner was admitted to the 
academy's directed studies program in 2010. The petitioner's participation or selection to the 
directed studies program does not meet the requirements of the regulation. Admission to 
and certification from an educational program, even a competitive one, is not a qualifying membership 
in an association. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115, 1221 (91h Cir. 2010) (citing Love Korean 
Church v. Chertoff, 549 F.3d 749, 758 (9th Cir. 2008) for the proposition that USCIS may not 
unilaterally impose novel substantive or evidentiary requirements beyond those set forth at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5). Notably, a degree is a criterion for aliens of exceptional ability, a lesser classification 
pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Act, which also includes a separate criterion for memberships. 
Compare 8 C.F.R. § 204.6(k)(3)(ii)(A); (E). Thus, the record supports the conclusion from our 
previous decision determining that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for the membership 
criterion. 
As evidence pertaining to the criterion for scholarly articles, the petitioner also submits a document with 
the search results from Coogle Scholar and a Wildpedia article about Coogle Scholar. The evidence is 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
rage'+ 
not new evidence . In support of the previous motion relating to the petitioner's eligibility as an alien of 
extraordinary abilities, the petitioner submitted the search results from Goof?le Scholar, using nearly 
identical search terms, demonstrating that his dissertation is available a~ 
Moreover, the online article about Google Scholar lacks probative value because Wikipedia is an online 
open-content website and the site makes no guarantee of validity. 
1 
See Lamilem Badasa v. Michael 
Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909 (81h Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we have fully considered the results of the 
Coogle Scholar search previously and the petitioner does not meet the basic requirements for 
reopening. 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2) (requiring a motion to reopen to state new facts). Moreover, even 
if we considered the Wikipedia information, it merely indicates that Google Scholar "is a freely 
accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of 
publishing formats and disciplines." Thus, this information does not support a conclusion that any 
article indexed on Google Scholar appeared in a professional or major trade publication or other 
major media as required under 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi). 
Similarly, the petitioner's evidence on motion relating to the claim of leading or critical role for an 
organization with a distinguished reputation is not new evidence. On motion, the petitioner asserts that 
the badge reflects an issue date of 
February 2010, prior to the filing of the orm 1-140 petition. However, our November 29, 2013 
decision specifically mentioned and considered the February 2010 badge. Consequently, evidence of 
the 2010 badge is not new evidence pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). In that decision dismissing the 
prior motion to reopen, we specifically determined that the petitioner failed to submit a letter from 
the New York City Bar Association (NYCBA) specifying how the petitioner contributed to that 
association in a way that is significant to the association's outcome. The petitioner includes a letter 
from the NYCBA, which was previously submitted and entered into the record. While the letter 
confirms that the organization has requested an pass for the petitioner, it does not indicate 
that the petitioner served in a leading or critical role by attending events. 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not provided relevant new evidence along with the motion to warrant 
reopening pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(2). 
1 
Online content from Wikipedia is subject to the following general disclaimer: 
WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY. Wikipedia is an online open-content 
collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups working to 
develop a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an 
Internet connection to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily 
been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or 
reliable information. . . . Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The 
content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone 
whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General disclaimer, accessed on June 16, 2014, a copy of which 
is incorporated into the record of proceeding. 
(b)(6)
NON-PRECEDENT DECISION 
Page 5 
Motion to Reconsider 
To the extent that the petitioner intends the current motion to be considered as a motion to 
reconsider, the petitioner asserts that there was a legal error in partly relying upon Matter of New 
York State Dep't ofTran sp., 22 I&N Dec. 215, 219, n.6 (Comm 'r 1998) (NYSDOT) to conclude that 
the petitioner's S.J.D. degree does not qualify as a one-time achievement, specifically a major 
internationally recognized award pursuant to 8 C.P.R. § 204.5(h)(3). The petitioner asserts that there 
was legal error because that case discusses the insufficiency of a second preference visa 
classification while the pending matter is about a first preference classification. Our initial denial on 
the appeal issued on June 21, 2013, as well as the subsequent denial on the motion , specifically 
discussed NYSDOT as part of the analysis for a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize 
or award. Thus , the petitioner needed to raise any legal challenge relating to the use of that case on 
the first motion, which we dismissed on November 29, 2013. Regardless, NYSDOT stated that 
academic performance cannot alone satisfy the national interest threshold, which requires a past 
history of demonstrable achievement with some degree of influence on the field as a whole. 
NYSDOT, 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n6. If academic performance alone cannot establish the type of 
achievement and influence necessary for second preference classification, it cannot serve as a one­
time achievement that would, by itself, establish eligibility for first preference classification, which 
otherwise requires a career of acclaimed work in the field. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 
1990). 
Accordingly, the petitioner has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider by submitting 
legal authority demonstrating that the November 29, 2013 decision was based on an incorrect 
application of law or policy as required under 8 C.P.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter of Otiende , 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Here, that burden 
has not been met. Accordingly , the motion will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The motions are dismissed, the AAO's November 29, 2013 decision is affirmed, and 
the petition remains denied.