dismissed EB-1A Case: Optical Engineering

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventcleanyawarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
and Immigration
Services
DATE: OFFICE:NEBRASKASERVICECENTER FILE:
JAN132012
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien Workerasan Alien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedto this matterhavebeenreturnedto theoffice thatoriginally decidedyour case.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquiry thatyoumighthaveconcerningyour casemustbemadeto thatoffice.
If you believethelaw wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyou wish to haveconsidered,you mayfile a motionto reconsideror a motionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucharequestcanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5. All motionsmustbe
submittedto theofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcaseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion, with a feeof $630. Pleasebe awarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat anymotionmust
befiled within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
PerryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscis.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the employment-based
immigrantvisa petition on February5, 2008. The AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO)
dismissedthepetitioner'sappealof thatdecisiononApril 2, 2009. Thematteris nowbeforethe
AAO on amotionto reconsider.Themotionwill bedismissed,thepreviousdecisionof theAAO
will beaffirmed,andthepetitionwill remaindenied.
In orderto properlyfile a motion,theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)requiresthatthe
motion must be "[a]ccompaniedby a statementabout whether or not the validity of the
unfavorabledecisionhasbeenor is thesubjectof anyjudicial proceedingand,if so,thecourt,
nature,date,andstatusor resultof theproceeding."Furthermore,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(4)requiresthat "[a] motion that doesnot meet applicablerequirementsshall be
dismissed.In this case,thepetitionerfailedto submitastatementregardingif thevalidity of the
decisionof theAAO hasbeenor is subjectof anyjudicial proceeding.
Notwithstandingthe above,in the decisionof the AAO dismissingthe petitioner's original
appeal,theAAO foundthat the petitionerfailed to establishthat he meetsat leastthreeof the
regulatorycriteriapursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). The AAO specifically
andthoroughlydiscussedthepetitioner'sevidenceanddeterminedthatthepetitionerfailedto
establish eligibility for the awards criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),the original contributionscriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v),the scholarly articles criterion pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi),the leadingor critical role criterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), and the high salary criterion pursuantto the regulation at 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).In fact,theAAO foundthatthepetitionerfailedto establisheligibility for any
of thecriteriapursuantto theregulationat8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
OnFormI-290B,Notice of Appealor Motion, counselindicatedin Part2 that shewasfiling a
motionto reconsiderthe decisionof theAAO. Moreover,in counsel'sbrief thatwasentitled,
"Motion for Reconsideration,"counsel"requestedthat the Service reconsiderits decision
[emphasisadded]." In addition, counselstated"in light of the new evidencesubmittedby the
Petitioner,it is requestedthat the Director's decisionof denialbe reconsideredandthe Petition
approved[emphasisadded]."
Theregulationat8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3)provides:
A motion to reconsidermust state the reasonsfor reconsiderationand be
supportedby anypertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthatthe decisionwas
basedon an incorrect applicationof law or Servicepolicy. A motion to
reconsideradecisiononanapplicationorpetitionmust,whenfiled,alsoestablish
thatthedecisionwasincorrectbasedontheevidenceof recordatthetimeof the
initial decision.
Page3
A motion to reconsidermust statethe reasonsfor reconsiderationand be supportedby any
pertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthatthedecisionwasbasedon anincorrectapplication
of laworU.S.CitizenshipandImmigration(USCIS)policy.8C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3).A motionto
reconsiderconteststhe correctnessof theoriginaldecisionbasedon thepreviousfactualrecord,
as opposedto a motion to reopenwhich seeksa new hearingbasedon new or previously
unavailableevidence.SeeMatterof Cerna,20I&N Dec.399,403(BIA 1991).
Furthermore,a motion to reconsidercannotbe usedto raisea legal argumentthat couldhave
beenraisedearlier in the proceedings.Rather,the "additional legal arguments"that may be
raisedin a motion to reconsidershouldflow from new law or a de novo legal determination
reachedin its decisionthat may not havebeenaddressedby the party. Furthera motion to
reconsideris not aprocessby which apartymaysubmit,in essence,thesamebrief presentedon
appealandseekreconsiderationby generallyallegingerrorin theprior decision. Instead,the
movingpartymustspecifythefactualandlegalissuesraisedon appealthatweredecidedin error
or overlookedin the initial decisionor mustshowhow a changein law materiallyaffectsthe
priordecision.SeeMatterofMedrano,20I&N Dec.216,219(BIA 1990,1991).
In counsel'smotionto reconsider,counselclaimedthatthepetitionerwaseligiblefor theawards
criterion pursuantto the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i),the original contributions
criterionpursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(v),the scholarlyarticlescriterion
pursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi),andtheleadingor critical role criterion
pursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii)andsubmittedadditionaldocumentary
evidencesuchasrecommendationletters,authoredmaterialby thepetitioner,andthecitationof
his work by others. However,counselneverclaimedin herbrief that theAAO's decisionwas
basedon anincorrectapplicationof law or Servicepolicy, andcounseldid not supportherbrief
with anypertinentprecedentdecisions. Instead,counselrequestedthe AAO to reconsiderthe
specifiedregulatorycriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)basedontheadditionaldocumentation.
As notedabove,a motionto reconsidermustincludespecificallegationsasto how theAAO
erredasa matterof fact or law in its prior decision,andit mustbe supportedby pertinentlegal
authority. Becausecounsel has failed to raise such allegations of error in her motion to
reconsider,theAAO will dismissthemotionto reconsider.
TheAAO notesthattheregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2)providesthat"[a] motionto reopen
must statethe new facts to be provided in the reopenedproceedingand be supportedby
affidavitsor otherdocumentaryevidence." Basedon theplainmeaningof "new," a newfactis
foundto beevidencethatwasnot availableandcouldnothavebeendiscoveredor presentedin the
previousproceeding.1
Theword"new" is definedas"1. havingexistedor beenmadefor onlya shorttime . . . 3. Justdiscovered,found,or
learned<newevidence>. . . ." WEBSTER'SII NEWRIVERSIDEUNIVERSITYDICTIONARY792(1984)(emphasisin
original).
Page4
Evenif theAAO consideredcounsel'smotionasamotionto reopen,areviewof theevidencethat
thepetitionersubmitson motionrevealsno factthatcouldbe considered"new" under8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(2).Thepetitionerhasbeenaffordedthreedifferentopportunitiesto submitthisevidence:
atthetimeof theoriginalfiling of thepetition,in responseto thedirector'srequestfor additional
evidencepursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8),andat thetime of thefiling of the
appeal.A reviewof theevidencethatcounselsubmittedrevealsno factthatcouldbeconsidered
"new"under8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2)and,therefore,cannotbeconsideredaproperbasisfor amotion
to reopen.
It is notedthattheAAO determinedthatthepetitionerfailedto meetthescholarlyarticlescriterion
pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi).A review of the recordof proceeding
reflectsthatthepetitionersubmitteddocumentaryevidenceshowingthatheco-authoredarticlesin
publishedSPIE(IntemationalSocietyforOpticalEngineering)conferenceproceedings.Theplain
languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requires"[e]videnceof the alien's
authorshipof scholarlyarticlesin the field, in professionalor major tradepublicationsor other
majormedia." Pursuantto Kazarianv. USCIS,596 F.3d 1115(9th Cir. 2010),the petitioner
submittedsufficientdocumentaryevidenceto demonstratethathemeetstheplain languageof the
regulationfor this criterion. However,the record of proceedingreflects that the petitioner
establishedeligibilityfor oneof thecriteria,in whichatleastthreearerequiredundertheregulation
at8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
It is furthernotedthat counselsubmittedseveraldocumentsreflectingthepatentsof otherswho
citedthepetitioner'swork. However,thepatentsweregrantedafterthefiling of theinitial petition
onMarch12,2007.Eligibilitymustbeestablishedatthetimeof filing. 8 C.F.R.§§103.2(b)(1),
(12);MatterofKatigbak,14I&N Dec.45,49(Reg'lComm'r1971).A petitioncannotbeapproved
ata futuredateafterthepetitionerbecomeseligibleunderanewsetof facts.MatterofIzummi,22
I&N Dec.169,175(Comm'r1998).Thatdecisionfurtherprovides,citingMatterofBardouille,18
I&N Dec.114(BIA 1981),thatUSCIScannot"considerfactsthatcomeintobeingonlysubsequent
to thefiling of apetition." Id. at 176.
In addition,the AAO notesthat in the decisionregardingthe awardscriterionpursuantto the
regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(i),theAAO discussed,in part,thediscrepanciesregardingthe
year that the petitioner received
' Specifically,thepetitionersubmitteda documentreflectingthathereceivedtheawardin
2002;howeverthepetitionersubmittedfive referencelettersindicatingthatthepetitionerreceived
theawardin 2001. It is incumbentuponthepetitionerto resolveanyinconsistenciesin therecord
by independentobjectiveevidence.Any attemptto explainor reconcilesuchinconsistencieswill
not sufficeunlessthepetitionersubmitscompetentobjectiveevidencepointingto wherethetruth
lies. Matterof Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582,591-92(BIA 1988). Doubtcaston anyaspectof the
petitioner'sproof may, of course,leadto a reevaluationof the reliability andsufficiencyof the
remainingevidenceofferedin supportof thevisapetition. Id. If USCISfailsto believethatafact
statedin thepetitionis true,USCISmayrejectthat fact. Section204(b)of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§
1154(b);seealsoAnetekhaiv. I.N.S.,876F.2d1218,1220(5thCir.1989);Lu-AnnBakeryShop,
Page5
Inc. v. Nelson,705F. Supp.7, 10(D.D.C.1988);SystronicsCorp.v. INS, 153F. Supp.2d 7, 15
(D.D.C.2001).Onmotion,counselclaims:
[T]hediscrepancycomesfromthefactthatthePetitioner'spaperhadbeenreadand
presentedMymposium, whilethejury didnotissueits decisionasto
thewinneruntil the followin ar. As a result,theawardwaspresentedto [the
petitioner]at
Counselsubmitteda documentthatpurportedlylistedthewinnersof theawardfrom2001- 2009.
However,thedocumentis notpersuasiveevidenceto demonstratewhenthepetitionerreceivedthe
awardasthereis no indicationof thesourcefor theinformation. It appearsthatthedocumentis
self-compiled;thereforeit carriesno evidentiaryweightin this proceeding.Moreover,counsel
failedto submitanydocumentaryevidenceto supportherassertions.Theunsupportedstatements
of counselon appealor in a motionarenot evidenceandthusarenot entitledto anyevidentiary
weight. SeeINS v. Phinpathya,464U.S. 183,188-89n.6 (1984). Counselfailedto submit
competent,objectiveevidenceto establishwhenthepetitionerreceivedthe awardandfailedto
overcomethediscrepancieson motion. Moreover,evenif thepetitionerwereto submitsupporting
documentaryevidenceshowingwhenhereceivedtheaward,aswell asmeetingall of theelements
of thiscriterionincludingthattheawardis nationallyor internationallyrecognizedfor excellence,
whichhe clearlyhasnot, section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct requiresthe submissionof extensive
evidence.Consistentwith that statutoryrequirement,the plain languageof the regulationat 8
C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(i)requiresmorethanonenationallyor internationallyrecognizedprize or
awardfor excellence.Significantly,not all of thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)arewordedin
theplural. Specifically,theregulationsat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(ix) onlyrequireservice
onasinglejudgingpanelor a singlehighsalary.Whenaregulatorycriterionwishesto includethe
singularwithintheplural,it expresslydoessoaswhenit statesat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(k)(3)(ii)(B)that
evidenceof experiencemustbein theformof "letter(s)."Thus,theAAO caninferthatthepluralin
theremainingregulatorycriteriahasmeaning.In a differentcontext,federalcourtshaveupheld
USCIS'abilityto interpretsignificancefromwhetherthesingularor plural is usedin aregulation.
SeeMaramjayav. USCIS,Civ. Act. No. 06-2158(RCL) at 12 (D.C.Cir. March26, 2008);
Snapnames.comInc. v. Chertoff;2006WL 3491005at *10 (D. Or. Nov. 30,2006)(upholdingan
interpretationthattheregulatoryrequirementfor "a" bachelor'sdegreeor "a" foreignequivalent
degreeat 8 C.F.R. §204.5(1)(2)requiresa singledegreeratherthan a combinationof academic
credentials).In thecasehere,thepetitionerclaimedeligibility for this criterionbasedon a single
award.
Finally,theAAO notesthatcounseldid not contestthefindingsof thedirectorfor thehighsalary
criterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix).TheAAO, therefore,considers
thisissuetobeabandoned.SeeSepulvedav. U.S.Att'yGen.,401F.3d1226,1228n. 2 (11thCir.
2005);Hristovv.Roark,No. 09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,
2011)(thecourtfoundtheplaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemonappealto
theAAO).
Page6
Motionsfor the reopeningof immigrationproceedingsaredisfavoredfor the samereasonsasare
petitionsforrehearingandmotionsfor anewtrial onthebasisof newlydiscoveredevidence.INSv.
Doherty,502U.S.314,323(1992)(citingINSv.Abudu,485U.S.94(1988)).A partyseekingto
reopenaproceedingbearsa "heavyburden."INSv.Abudu,485U.S.at 110. As themotiondoes
notmeettherequirementsof theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2),themotionto reopenwould
havebeendismissed.
Theburdenof proofin visapetitionproceedingsremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291
of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1361.Here,thepetitionerhasnot sustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Themotionto reconsideris dismissed,thedecisionof theAAO datedApril 2,2009,
is affirmed,andthepetitionremainsdenied.