dismissed EB-1A Case: Mathematics

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 21539608 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 24, 2022 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a doctoral student and teaching assistant , seeks classification as an alien of extraordinary 
ability . See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l )(A), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(1XA). 
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 that the Petitioner met the initial evidence requirements of this immigrant visa classification 
through evidence meeting at least three of the evidentiary criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204 .5(h)(3) or 
showing that he received a major, internationally-recognized award. The Petitioner appealed the 
Director's decision. Upon review, we concluded that although he had met one of the evidentiary 
criteria, he still had not established that he met the initial evidence requirement. The Petitioner now 
submits combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon review, we will dismiss both motions. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )(1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy to the prior decision, and 
a motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to 
reconsider are located at8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located 
at 8 C.F.R. § I 03.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner is currently a doctoral student and teaching assistant at the University! I I I and has stated that he intends to pursue a teaching career at this or another institution. He holds 
a Master of Science degree in mathematics from and another from the I I 
University ofl I 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
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. § I 03.5(a)(3). 
In first addressing the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) relating to judging the work of others in 
his field. the Petitioner asserts that we erred in finding that his participation in the 
I I "does not constitute a formal judging of the work of others." However, 
our appeal decision did not use the term "formal judging" in its analysis under this criterion, and the 
Petitioner appears to have confused our decision with the Director's, which is not at issue on motion. 
The Petitioner also cites to a statement in one of our non-precedent decisions concerning a different 
individual which notes that this criterion "is broad enough to encompass a wide range of activities that 
involve judging the work of others, whether or not such judging entails, or results from, sustained 
acclaim in the field." This decision was not published as a precedent and therefore does not bind USCIS 
officers in future adjudications. See 8 C.F.R. § I 03.3( c). Non-precedent decisions apply existing law and 
policy to the specific facts of the individual case, and may be distinguishable based on the evidence in the 
record of proceedings, the issues considered, and applicable law and policy. In addition, the cited 
language from that decision appeared as part of a final merits determination and was meant to highlight 
the difference between evidence which qualifies under this criterion and that which helps to establish a 
petitioner's national or international acclaim. While we agree that a broad range of activities may qualify 
as judging the work of others in the field under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), it remains the Petitioner's 
burden to establish that he participated in a qualifying activity. 
In another statement regarding this criterion, the Petitioner asserts that our previous decision was incorrect 
in stating that the record does not include mention of the evaluation panels which he described as being 
part of thel I project. Our decision stated that the only mention of the evaluatio
1
n panels and the 
Petitioner's involvement with them was made by the Petitioner, and that neither the website 
information or the letter from I I mentioned the panels at all, let alone his participation as a 
member. Although the Petitioner asserts that this statement was wrong, he does not point to specific 
evidence in the record where that information may be found. 
2 
Regarding the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) relating to original contributions of major 
significance in the field, the Petitioner states that due to the nature of his research in the area ofl I 
I he is unable to submitevidenceofpatents, usage or implementation, but points to two reference 
letters which were submitted in response to the Director's request for evidence (RFE). The first of these 
is froml la professor atthel University I I He states that while he hasn't interacted directly with the Petitioner, he and his colleagues 
cited to one of the Petitioner's articles published in 2016 and used his results in their own work. 
I I also briefly describes a 2014 paper that the Petitioner which covered 
the use ofl lmodels in makingl I forecasts at the I I level, noting that the 
Petitioner contributed mathematical models to this work. But he does not indicate that the Petitioner's 
contribution to this paper was an original contribution to the overall field of mathematics, nor does he 
provide any indication of its significance to the field. 
The other reference letter was written by of thel I Institute of physics 
and Technology. He begins by discussing the Petitioner's academic excellence and erformance as a 
teacher, but does not indicate that he made an original contribution in the latter field. 
then describes a lecture given by the Petitioner at a scientific conference in 2008 that conceme 
I lwhich he indicates "was warmly appreciate by the audience." He goes on name others emin ars 
at which the Petitioner spoke, provides a list of mathematics professors that he states have "recognized 
and praised" the Petitioner (some of whom also submitted reference letters), and states that the Petitioner 
has published more than 20 papers, many of which he claims have been highly cited. However, while he 
indicates that many of the Petitioner's presentations and publications were well received, he also does not 
identify an original contribution made to the field by the Petitioner, and his assertions regarding the 
widespread citation of this work is not suppmied in the record. 
The Petitioner also references evidence of his participation in mathematical symposiums and conferences 
as supporting the importance of his research. However, we will not assume that every presentation made 
at a symposium or conference, even a prestigious one, constitutes a contribution of major significance. 
Rather, it is the documented impact such presentations have made which determines their significance to 
the field. "Contributions of major significance" connotes that the Petitioner's work has significantly 
impacted the field. See Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 134 (D.D.C. 2013). For example, a 
petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the field, have 
remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major significance in 
the field. Here, the Petitioner has not shown that his presentations contributed to the field to the extent 
that they were of major significance. 
After review of the Petitioner's brief and the previously submitted evidence he references, we find that 
he has not shown that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy and that it 
was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time. We will therefore dismiss 
his motion to reconsider. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R 
§ 103 .5 ( a )(2). The Petitioner submitted two additional documents in support of his motion, one each 
relating to the evidentiary criteria discussed above. Pertaining to his participation as a judge of the 
3 
work of others, he presents a new letter from Organizer. Much of his letter 
is taken directly from the previously-submitted webpage for the but he does confirm the 
Petitioner's participation as a mentor in the program for 8 quarters spanning three years. The letter 
states that in this role the Petitioner has overseen and guided students through reading projects, and 
provided weekly feedback and assessments. As with the previous evidence, it does not indicate that 
he has participated in judging the students' presentations at the end of the quarter, or that the judging 
of these presentations is part of the role of mentors in the I !program. Accordingly, this new 
evidence does not establish that he meets the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). 
As for the criterion relating to original contributions of major significance, the Petitioner asserts that 
his role in a project funded by the U.S. Army is both original and of major significance, and submits 
a document entitled "Report Documentation Page." However, this document neither lists the 
Petitioner as an "author" nor shows how this work is of major significance. The Petitioner has not 
established that the fact that a project to which he has contributed has been funded by the U.S. 
government leads to the conclusion that the research has already been of major significance to his 
field. Again, we look to the effect this work may have had on the work of other researchers in the 
field, and this new evidence does not provide such information. 
Because the new evidence submitted on motion does not establish that he meets these evidentiary 
criteria, we will dismiss the Petitioner's motion to reopen. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
4