dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF H-T-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: OCT. 17, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a lawyer, seeks classification as an individual 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition in 2013, 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 ten regulatory 
criteria listed under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) . That same year, we upheld the Director's decision, 
and subsequently reaffirmed our findings in twelve motion decisions between 2013 and 2018. 1 
The matter is now before us on motion for the thirteenth time. The Petitioner has filed combined 
motions to reconsider and reopen, asserting that our "finding and conclusion was incomplete." He 
further alleges that his additional documentation establishes eligibility for three additional criteria. 
Upon review, we will deny the combined motions to reconsider and reopen. 
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. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
1 Our most recent decision in this matter is Matter of H-T- , ID# 1816301 (AAO Dec. 11, 2018) . 
Matter of H-T-
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that we erred in our last decision because we did not consider his 
evidence relating to events occurring after the filing of his initial petition in 2010. As discussed in our 
prior decision regarding the membership criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
the Petitioner provided eight lists of "ABA [ American Bar Association] Day at the UN [United 
Nations]" delegation members for 2011 - 2018 identifying him as an ABA participant and his single­
day UN access pass for 2018. Moreover, relating to the leading or critical role criterion under the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii), he submitted a January 2018 letter from I I 
executive director of the~ _______________ .....,, requesting a "UN Grounds Pass" 
for the Petitioner. In addition, he presented a March 2018 letter fro~ I chair-elect of the 
I I thanking the Petitioner for "volunteering" and appointing him and four other individuals "as 
Vice Chairs of UN & International Organizations Committee of the 
for the term running from August 10, 2018 to August 10, 2019." 2 ~------------~ 
The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ); see 
also Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971) ("Congress did not intend that a 
petition that was properly denied because the beneficiary was not at that time qualified be subsequently 
approved at a future date when the beneficiary may become eligible under a new set of facts"). As his 
evidence related to events occurring after the filing of his petition, the Petitioner did not show that we 
erred as a matter of law or policy. 
Furthermore, even though the above events occurred after his initial petition filing, we found that the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that his participation in the annual "ABA Day at the UN" constituted 
membership in an association in the field requiring outstanding achievements of its members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts. In addition, we determined that the Petitioner 
did not establish that his roles with I I ABA, or the UN reflected leading or critical roles with 
organizations or establishments with a distinguished reputation. On motion, the Petitioner does not 
address these specific findings. 
Finally, the Petitioner cites to two non-precedent decisions and argues that we "exercised discretion 
to review the records in the aggregate and make a conclusion." Again, the Petitioner contends that we 
should consider post-filing events. These decisions, however, were not published as precedent and 
therefore do not bind USCIS officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. §103.3(c). Non-precedent 
decisions apply existing law and policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be 
distinguished based on the evidence in the record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable 
law and policy. Moreover, we review the record in aggregate when a petitioner submits either a one­
time achievement or documents that meet at three of the ten criteria. Here, the Petitioner did not 
demonstrate that he received a major, internationally recognized award or fulfilled at least three of the 
ten categories of evidence. Furthermore, in reviewing the record in the aggregate, we examine the 
2 This letter indicated that vice chairs are "well positioned to become Committee Co-Chairs next year, if you are interested 
in a greater leadership role within your Committee and the Section." 
2 
Matter of H-T-
evidence that establishes eligibility at the time of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103 .2(b )(1 ). Regardless, as 
discussed, his evidence did not show satisfaction of the membership and leading or critical role criteria. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that we incorrectly applied law 
or policy in our latest decision, or that we erroneously adjudicated the benefit based on the evidence 
in the record of proceedings at the time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Therefore, we 
will deny his motion to reconsider. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
We will similarly deny the Petitioner's motion to reopen the matter. Regarding the membership 
criterion, the Petitioner submits the UN's "2007 National Competitive Recruitment Examination For 
Junior Professional Officers" and supporting evidence and highlights that "[i]n instances where a large 
number of applications are received ... the Board reserves the right to admit to the examination only 
the most qualified candidates based on a review of the qualifications which are over and above the 
minimum entrance criteria." In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. §204.5(h)(3)(ii), the 
Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on being judged by recognized 
national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which 
classification is sought. 3 Here, the purpose of the UN' s recruitment exam is "for employment at 
United Nations offices" rather than for membership in an association. Moreover, the Board may 
reserve the right to hire junior professional officers when "a large number of applications are received" 
but is not a requirement, including when there is a smaller amount of applications. Furthermore, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that passing an examination represents "outstanding achievements" 
consistent with the regulatory criterion. In addition, the Petitioner did not establish that "membership" 
is judged by recognized national or international experts. 
As it relates to the leading or critical role criterion, the Petitioner presents a February 2010 letter from 
I I requesting a "UN Annual Pass" and a copy of his pass. In addition, the Petitioner submits 
documents pertaining to events occurring after the filing of his initial petition, such as the "Conference 
of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime" (October 
2018), "ABA Day at the UN" (April 2013), "United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights" 
(November 2018), and "The New Engine of Growth in Asia Conference: Investment and Technology" 
( October 2018). Again, as these pertain to events occurring after the filing of his initial petition, we 
will not consider them. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Moreover, as it relates to a leading role, the evidence must establish that a petitioner is or was a leader. 
A title, with appropriate matching duties, can help to establish if a role is or was, in fact, leading. 4 
Regarding a critical role, the evidence must demonstrate that a petitioner has contributed in a way that 
3 See USCIS 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), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
4 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 10. 
3 
Matter of H-T-
is of significant importance to the outcome of the organizations or establishment's activities. It is not 
the title of a petitioner's role, but rather the performance in the role that determines whether the role 
is or was critical. 5 Here, the evidence the Petitioner lrovides on motion does not show that he 
performed in a leading or critical role for the I ABA, or UN at time he filed his petition. 
Furthermore, the evidence does not reflect that the Petitioner served in a leadership position or 
contributed to the success or standing of the organizations in a critical role. 
In addition, for the first time, the Petitioner claims that he qualifies for the high salary criterion under 
the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) and presents a blank ABA "Request for Reimbursement 
of Expenses" highlighting that ABA members are subject to $100 for lodging and meals per day. 
Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that "there is no lodging reimbursement limit" for him and provides 
copies of checks from the ABA for 2011 - 2015. Again, the checks cover a period after the filing of 
his petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). Moreover, the Petitioner did not explain how the blank 
expense form and checks support his assertion regarding his exemption to the reimbursement limit. 
Furthermore, in order to meet the high salary criterion, a petitioner must demonstrate that his salary or 
remuneration is high relative to the compensation paid to others working in the field. 6 However, the 
Petitioner did not offer comparative evidence for salary or remuneration of others in his field. See 
Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953, 954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994) (considering a professional golfer's 
earnings versus other PGA Tour golfers); see also Skokos v. US. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 420 F. 
App'x 712, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding salary information for those performing lesser duties is 
not a comparison to others in the field); Grimson v. INS, 934 F. Supp. 965, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1996) 
( considering NHL enforcer's salary versus other NHL enforcers); Muni v. INS, 891 F. Supp. 440, 444-
45 (N. D. Ill. 1995) ( comparing salary of NHL defensive player to salary of other NHL defensemen). 
Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he commanded a high salary or significantly high 
remuneration for services in relation to others in his field. 
As his evidence does not satisfy at least three of the evidentiary criteria, we will deny his motion to 
reopen. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that our previous decision was incorrect based on the record before us, 
nor does his new evidence on motion demonstrate that he has fulfilled at least three of the evidentiary 
criteria. In visa petition proceedings, it is the petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the 
immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §1361; Matter ofSkirball Cultural Ctr., 
25 I&N Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
5 Id. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0005.1, supra, at 11. 
4 
Matter of H-T-
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of H-T-, ID# 4354769 (AAO Oct. 17, 2019) 
5