dismissed EB-1A Case: Modeling

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF J-0-0-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 3, 2019 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a model, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in the arts. 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 Acting Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the Petitioner's Form 1-140, Immigrant 
Petitioner Alien Worker. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal 1 and subsequently denied a motion to 
reopen. 2 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
The term "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate a one-time achievement (that is, a major, 
internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, then he or she must 
provide documentation that meets at least three of the ten categories listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material in certain media, and 
scholarly articles). Where a petitioner submits qualifying evidence under at least three criteria, we 
will then determine whether the totality of the record shows sustained national or international acclaim 
and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage at the very top of the field of 
endeavor. 3 
1 See Matter of J-O-O-, ID# 868229 (AAO Jan. 26, 2018). 
2 See Matter of J-O-O-, ID# 1482034 (AAO Sept. 5, 2018) 
3 See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing a two-part review where the documentation is first 
counted and then, if fulfilling the required number of criteria, considered in the context of a final merits determination); 
see also Visinscaia v. Beers, 4 F. Supp. 3d 126, 131-32 (D.D.C. 2013); Rijal v. USCIS, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 
2011). This two-step analysis is consistent with our holding that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of 
evidence alone but by its quality," as well as the principle that we examine "each piece of evidence for relevance, probative 
.
Matter of J-0-0-
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a 
motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these 
requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
11. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
The Director denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner did not satisfy the initial evidentiary criteria 
applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability, either a major, internationally recognized award or 
at least three of ten possible forms of documentation. Specifically, the Director determined that the 
Petitioner did not meet any of the criteria. We then dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, concluding that 
she only fulfilled the criterion for judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). Subsequently, we denied the 
Petitioner's motion to reopen, determining that her additional evidence did not establish that she 
achieved any additional criteria. 
In the current motion to reconsider, the Petitioner references the Director's decision made in a prior 
petition filing, as well as the Director's request for evidence (RFE) issued in the most recent filing. 
Thus, the Petitioner argues that she meets two additional criteria. 
III. ANALYSIS 
At the outset, the Petitioner did not include the required statement about whether or not the validity of 
the unfavorable decision has been, or is, the subject of any judicial proceeding. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.S(a)(l)(iii)(C). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 
C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). Moreover, for the reasons discussed below, the Petitioner's motion to reconsider 
does not establish that we erred in our prior decision. 
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). In addition, a motion to reconsider must be supported 
by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services or Department of Homeland Security. 
The Petitioner contends that the Director previously determined in denying her first petition 
that she satisfied the awards criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). 4 
In addition, the Petitioner argues that in the RFE for her current petition, the Director indicated that 
she fulfilled the published material criterion under the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 5 
Accordingly, the Petitioner claims that she meets three of the evidentiary criteria. 
value, and credibility, both individually and within the context of the totality of the evidence, to determine whether the 
fact to be proven is probably true." Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
4 The Director stated that the Petitioner "has provided sufficient documentation " to meet the awards criterion without 
identifying the documentation or indicating which award(s) fulfilled the criterion. 
5 The Director indicated that "[t]his criterion has been met" for published material without providing any further 
explanation or justification. 
2 
Matter of J-0-0-
In regards to her prior petition, the scope of the Petitioner's eligibility is limited to the record of 
proceedings regarding only this petition. Further, statements or determinations by a director in an 
RFE do not constitute a final or official decision. In fact, the Director issued a decision explaining 
why her evidence did not meet the evidentiary criteria, including the awards and published material 
criteria. In addition, we are not bound by decisions of a service center or district director. See La. 
Philharmonic Orchestra v. INS, No. 98-2855, 2000 WL 282785, at *2 (E.D. La. 2000). Finally, we 
conducted a de nova review of the record regarding the Petitioner's appeal and evaluated her evidence 
in her motion to reopen. In both instances, we thoroughly analyzed the evidence and explained why 
her documentation did not satisfy the awards and published material criteria. Accordingly, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate that we erred in finding that she fulfilled only one criterion. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not shown that our previous decision was incorrect based on the record before us. 
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. § 13 61; Matter of Skirball Cultural Ctr., 25 I&N 
Dec. 799, 806 (AAO 2012). Here, that burden has not been met. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of J-0-0-, ID# 2675726 (AAO Apr. 3, 2019) 
3