dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

.MATTER OF H-T-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
. DATE: DEC. 11, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DEClSION 
PET[TlON: FORM 1-140, lMMIGRANT 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)(I )(A), 8 U.S.C. § I 153(b)(])(A). This first preference 
classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can demonstrate their extraordinary 
ability through sustained national or ipternational acclaim and whose achievements have been 
recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant Petitioner 
Alien Worker, concluding that he had not satisfied at least three of the ten initial evidentiary criteria 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). We upheld that decision on appeal and reaffinned our findings in eleven 
subsequent motion decisions. 1 
The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and· reconsider. The Petitioner 
maintains that he meets the membership criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), the contributions of 
major significance criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), and the leading or critical role criterion at 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). He also asserts that he has provided comparable evidence for the 
membership criterion.2 
Upon review, we will deny both motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application qf'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 ,\.latter <f H-T-, ID# 1161068 (AAO May 15, 2018) was our most recent decision in this matter. 
2 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4). 
.
Maller 4 N-T-
II. ANALYSIS 
In our previous decisions denying the Petitioner's motions, we determined that he did not meet the 
initial evidence requirements under 8 C.F.R. § 204.S{h)(J). While the Petitioner established that he 
has served as a judge of the work of others in his field under 8 C.F.R. ~ 204.5(h)(3)(iv), he did not 
submit evidence demonstrating that he met two additional criteria. 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion, the Petitioner contests our findings relating to the criteria at 8 C.F_.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), 
(v), and (viii), but he has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider as he has not 
demonstrated that we erred in our previous analysis based on the record before us. Further, the motion 
to reconsider does establish that our previous findings were based on an incorrect application of the lavv, 
regulation, or USCIS policy. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
In support of his motion to reopen, the Petitioner offers evidence relating to the criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and (viii), which we will address below. 
I 
Documenlation <?f the alien's membership in associations in the field fiJr ll'hich 
classification is sought, which require ow standing achievemenls <?( 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 participation in meets this 
criterion. He presents an October 2009 email from 
for the thanking the Petitioner "for 
your interest in , which is a day of meetings for a small delegation of the 
Board of Governors and Section leaders. Since it is by invitation only, I will add you to a list if there 
is space available." In addition, he provides eight lists of delegation 
members for 2011 - 2018 identifying him as an participant and his single-day access pass 
for 2018. The evidence of the Petitioner's participation in 2011 and later post-dates the filing of the 
petition and therefore cannot be considered for establishing his eligibility. See 8 C.P.R. 
§ 103.2(b )(1 ). Nevertheless, he has not demonstrated that his participation in this annual event 
involving members constitutes membership in an association in the field requiring outstanding 
achievements of its members, as judged by recognized national or international experts. 
Furthermore, with respect to the Petitioner's request that we consider his participation in 
as comparable evidence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(4), this regulation allows for 
comparable evidence if the listed criteria do not readily apply to his occupation.3 A petitioner should 
' See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-NO 
2 
.
Matter ~f H-T-
explain why he has not submitted evidence that would satisfy at least three of the criteria set forth in 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) as well as why the evidence he has included is "comparable" to that required 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3).4 
Here, the Petitioner has not shown why he cannot ofter evidence that meets at least three of the ten 
criteria. The fact that the Petitioner did not provide documentation that fulfills at least three is not 
evidence that a lawyer could not do so. As 9iscussed, the Petitioner maintains that he meets four 
criteria. Moreover, the Petitioner has not shown that lawyers cannot present evidence relating to the 
other criteria such as ·nationally recognized awards for excellence and high salary.5 As such, the 
Petitioner has not established that he is eligible to meet this criterion through the submission of 
comparable evidence. 
Regardless, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that his participation in is 
comparable to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), as claimed. For example, the record does 
not show that his involvement in the required outstanding achievements, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in the field. The Petitioner has not 
demonstrated that the documentation he claims as comparable to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ii) is of the same caliber as the evidence required by this regulation. 
Evidence that the_ alien has pe~-formed in a leading or critical role for organizations 
or establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii). 
The Petitioner argues that he has performed in a leading or critical role for the 
and the He · states that he '•has been serving as 'Additional 
Representative'. of the 
to the since January 20 l O and that he "is the association's on 1 y 
Additional Representative." He submits a January 2018 letter from executive director 
of the requesting "a for the following member of my organization: [the 
Petitioner], Additional Representative." In addition, the Petitioner provides his 
grounds pass. He also presents a March 2018 letter from 
Chair-Elect of the ABA, thanking the Petitioner for "volunteering" and appointing 
him and four other individuals "as Vice Chairs of the 
of the for the term running from August 10, 2018 to August I 0, 
2019."() The aforementioned letters and grounds pass do not establish the Petitioner's eligibility at 
the time filing. See 8 C.F.R. * 103.2(b)(1). 
Petitions: Revisions to the Aqjudicator 's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADI 1-/4 12 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https ://www.uscis.gov/s ites/defau lt/fi I es/USC I S/Laws/Memoranda/i-I 40-evidence-pm-6002-005-1 .pd f. 
~ Id 
5 See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) and (ix). 
6 This letter indicates 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." 
3 
.
1\,fa1ter <l H-T-
Regardless, this documentation is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Petitioner has performed in a 
leading or critical role for the the or the For example, the evidence does not 
indicate how his role is situated within their organizational hierarchy , nor has he otherwise shown 
that serving as an additional representative or vice chair of a sectional committee constitutes a 
leading role for the aforementioned organizations . In addition , the Petitioner has not demonstrated 
that he has contributed to these organizations in a way that is of significant importance to the 
outcome of their activities so as to establish his role was critical. 
For the above reasons, the documentation submitted on motion does not establish that the Petitioner 
meets at least three of the ten categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3). 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not established that our previous deci sion was incorrect based on the record 
before us, nor does his new evidence on motion demonstrate that he qualifies as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied . 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Maller ofH-T- , ID# 1816301 (AAO Dec. 11, 2018) 
4