dismissed EB-1A Case: Law

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 22, 2024 In Re: 34580128 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner 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). 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, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish: 1) his eligibility as an individual of extraordinary ability, 2) he seeks to enter the United States 
to continue work in the area of extraordinary ability, and 3) his entry into the United States will 
substantially benefit prospectively the United States. We dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter is 
now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
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 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that our decision determining that the Petitioner did not demonstrate 
his intent to continue to work in his claimed area of expertise as a postsecondary teacher "was incorrect 
and also incomplete." At the outset, the majority of the evidence submitted in support of the motion 
to reopen relates to events occurring after the filing of the initial petition in January 2013. The 
Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). 
Because the evidence does not establish his intent to work as a postsecondary teacher at the time he 
filed his petition, we need not further address it. 
The Petitioner also argues that his doctor of juridical science degree (SJD) "is designed for lawyers 
who aspire to pursue a career in legal academics rather than practicing law." Although the Petitioner 
submitted screenshots from collegeconsensus.com regarding an SJD, the Petitioner did not show that 
simply possessing such a degree establishes his intent to work in the United States as a postsecondary 
teacher. As indicated in our decision, the Petitioner did not include any letters from prospective 
employers, evidence of prearranged commitments or contracts, or a statement detailing his plans on 
how he intends to continue his work in the United States as a postsecondary teacher. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(5). In fact, as previously discussed in the decision, the Petitioner filed prior petitions 
claiming his intent work as a self-employed lawyer in international trade law and form his own legal 
practice without any mention of being a postsecondary teacher. 
The Petitioner further claims that his "experience working as a part-time research assistant ( on U.S. 
F-1 visa status) for Professor [S-F-] during the doctoral study, clearly demonstrates the petitioner's 
intent to continue to work in law teaching/postsecondary law teacher." The Petitioner submitted two 
letters confirming the Petitioner met the requirements for the SJD program and completed his 
dissertation. However, neither letter makes any indication of the Petitioner working as a part-time 
research assistant, nor did the Petitioner show how working as a part-time research assistant indicates 
experience as a postsecondary teacher, as well as intent to work as a postsecondary teacher in the 
United States. 
For these reasons, the Petitioner did not show that his evidence overcomes the underlying grounds in 
our previous decision, and therefore, we will dismiss his motion to reopen. 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was based on an incorrect application of 
law or policy and that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings 
at the time of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). 
The Petitioner asserts that he "indeed had both direct and relevant experience as a postsecondary law 
teacher (postsecondary legal education), even including a rare S.J.D. degree aiming at preparing a 
lawyers for a career in legal academics." Notwithstanding the Petitioner's continuous claims and 
references to the submission of post-filing events, the Petitioner also argues that "there also exists a 
nexus between practicing and teaching/researching law, and thus the petitioner's competitive 
accomplishments as a lawyer are not completely irrelevant either and should be given consideration 
as well." We thoroughly addressed this issue in our prior decision, and the Petitioner has not shown 
how we erred as a matter of law or policy. We acknowledged the possibility of an individual's 
extraordinary claim in more than one field, such as teaching postsecondary students and practicing 
law. However, a petitioner must demonstrate "by clear evidence that the alien is coming to the United 
States to continue work in the area of expertise." See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). In this case, the Petitioner 
claimed his area of expertise as a postsecondary teacher without the record containing any evidence 
relating to his accomplishments, achievements, history, or experience as a teacher, let alone as a 
postsecondary teacher. Even if we considered his law evidence under the regulatory criteria, the 
Petitioner did not show how he intended to teach in postsecondary education in the United States at 
the time he filed his petition. Again, the Petitioner did not include any letters from prospective 
employers, evidence of prearranged commitments or contracts, or a statement detailing his plans on 
how he intends to continue his work in the United States as a postsecondary teacher. 
2 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not show how any of the documentation involved continuing to work as 
a postsecondary teacher in the United States. None of the Petitioner's prior filings made any mention 
of the Petitioner's past experience in postsecondary teaching. In fact, although he filed multiple 
motions regarding his first extraordinary petition and while this petition was pending, none of his 
motions made any mention of him teaching postsecondary students or otherwise involved 
postsecondary teaching. The Petitioner did not establish how he intended to continue to work in his 
area of postsecondary teaching when he has never worked in his purported area of expertise, nor did 
he show any interest from any higher education institutions willing to hire him at the time he filed his 
petition. 
Because the Petitioner did not demonstrate his motion satisfies requirements for a motion to reconsider 
under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3), we will dismiss the motion to reconsider. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3