dismissed EB-1A Case: Legal Scholarship

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF E-R-K-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: SEPT. 5, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM I-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a legal scholar, 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, as required, that the Petitioner met any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria, of which at least 
three are required. On appeal, we found that the Petitioner's receipt of an Honorable Mention from 
the I I in 2010 met the criterion for lesser nationally or internationally recognized 
prizes or awards, but that he did not meet any of the other evidentiary criteria. 1 
On motion, the Petitioner submits additional evidence and asserts that he meets three additional 
evidentiary criteria. 
Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider must establish that our 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). We do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion 
to reconsider. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner asserts in his brief on motion that he meets an additional three criteria, and submits 
three new reference letters in support of these claims. However, as noted above, we do not consider 
new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider. We will therefore focus on the Petitioner's brief and 
his assertions regarding the incorrect application of law or policy. 
1 Matter of E-R-K-, ID# 1758010 (AAO Nov. 29, 2018) 
Matter of E-R-K-
A. Documentation of the Individual'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 
The Petitioner bases his claim to this criterion on his membership in the 
I 
~ Our previous decision acknowledged th~e_r_e_fi-er_e_n_c_e-le-t-te_r_fi_r_om__,,.--..., 
I who confirms that the Petitioner was nominated and appointed as a member, and 
later chairman, of the "Special Committee of Informatics and Statistics." As we noted, this letter 
demonstrates that, as President of the I l he exercised his authority to appoint the Petitioner to 
this position, after his nomination by legal experts, but does not establish that outstanding 
achievements are required for members of this organization or any of its committees. 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that "membership in this association is exclusive, meaning that it is 
limited solely to those who have been judged by recognized experts as having attained outstanding 
achievements in the field." However, membership exclusivity can be achieved by any number of 
factors, including education and a certain number of years of experience, which are not qualifying 
under the terms of this criterion. Regarding the specific selection of the Petitioner as an I I 
member,I l's letter indicates that it was based upon his work in the derlopnrnt of and 
training for a digital judicial processing system, as a member of the state of chapter of 
the . But neither the letter nor other evidence relating to the 
.__ _ ____. demonstrates that as a requirement in all cases, members are nominated, vetted and selected 
based upon their accomplishment of outstanding achievements, as opposed to other factors. 
Accordingly, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision regarding this criterion was 
incorrect. 
B. Evidence of the Individual's Original Scientific, Scholarly, Artistic, Athletic or Business-Related 
Contributions of Major Significance in the Field 
The Petitioner identifies several accom lishments that he asserts are ori inal contributions to the field, 
including his authorship of a book,~ ___________________ ___, and his 
part in the development and deployment of an electronic judicial process system that the record 
indicates has now been adopted by the majority of courts in Brazil. We noted in our previous decision 
that several reference letters in the record describe the contents of the book and refer to it as a "very 
useful guide," "a significant book," and as a first of its kind in Brazil, but that they do not include 
sufficient detail to demonstrate its impact on the overall field. 
On motion, the Petitioner argues that the fact that he received what we acknowledged as a nationally 
recognized award for his work in this area, one year after publication of the book, is a testament to the 
contribution that it made to the field that we should recognize under this criterion. However, in 
determining that the Petitioner's award met that criterion, we considered only the requirements of that 
criterion: that the award received by the Petitioner was in his field of expertise, was awarded for 
excellence, and that it received national or international recognition. Unlike a one-time achievement 
as shown by receipt of a major, internationally recognized award, that criterion is not sufficient by 
itself to establish qualification as an individual of extraordinary ability, but must be combined with 
2 
Matter of E-R-K-
two more criteria in order to establish initial eligibility. Therefore, our analysis of the major 
significance of the Petitioner's original contribution is independent of our analysis under other criteria, 
and may be shown by widespread implementation in the field, impact or influence on others in the 
field, or similar indicia of its major significance. 
The Petitioner also asserts that his work "brought about a national change in the administrative aspects 
of the legal and judicial processes" in Brazil, and refers to two new reference letters submitted with 
his motion. However, as noted above, we do not consider new evidence in a motion to reconsider. He 
does not assert that our determination that the previously submitted reference letters lack sufficient 
detail as to the extent or his impact of his contributions, and that they are not supported by sufficient 
documentary evidence, was an incorrect application of law or policy. 
C. Evidence that the Individual has Performed in a Leading or Critical Role for Organizations or 
Establishments That Have a Distinguished Reputation 
In our previous decision we found that the evidence re arding the Petitioner's role as vice president, 
and later chairman, of did not establish that these were either 
leading or critical for.__ __ __, The Petitioner provides dictionary definitions of these position titles 
in his motion brief, and asserts that the reference letter froml !provided 
sufficient detail about his duties in those roles to establish that they were leading. While the Petitioner 
correctly cites USCIS policy which states that a position title can help in determining whether that 
position was a leading one, title alone is not sufficient to meet this requirement. I I's 
letter explains that the Petitioner led the commission, worked with the judiciary in developing the 
"Electronic Judicial Process" and related educational materials, and represented the I I to the 
press in commission matters. In describing his duties as vice president of the commission, the letter 
adds that he "ministered dozens of lectures and courses on the subject." This evidence demonstrates 
that as chairman, the Petitioner played a leading role for the commission, directing its members and 
representing its interests when working with other entities. But it does not establish that he led or 
directed I I members outside of the commission, or engaged other entities on behalf of the 
entire I l the organization or establishment in question. Therefore, the Petitioner has not 
established that our previous decision was incorrect based upon the record of proceedings at the time 
of the decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has submitted additional reference letters, but we do not consider such new evidence in 
a motion to reconsider. In addition, we find that the description of his duties found in a previously 
submitted reference letter does not establish that he played a leading role forl I but that his 
leadership was limited to a single committee or commission within that organization. For these 
reasons, the Petitioner has not established that our previous decision was an incorrect application of 
law or policy, or incorrect based upon the records of proceedings at the time of the decision. 
3 
Matter of E-R-K-
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of E-R-K-, ID# 3986973 (AAO Sept. 5, 2019) 
4