dismissed EB-1A Case: Photography

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R-S-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 15, 2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAlS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a fashion and glamour photographer, 1 seeks classification as an individual of 
extraordinary ability in the arts. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 
203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(1)(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 Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker, concluding that the Petitioner did not satisfy, as required, at least three of the ten initial 
evidentiary criteria. We subsequently dismissed his appeal, finding that he met only one of the ten 
• • 7 
cntena.· 
The matter is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 3 The Petitioner submits a 
brief, asserting that our decision was "erroneous, arbitrary and bad interpretation of the law" and 
maintains that we did not '"giv[e] proper weight to the submitted evidences [sic]." He further claims 
that he presented "documentary evidences [sic] in all ten regulatory criteria." He, however, has not 
offered any documentation on motion. 
Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
I. LAW 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts. The requirements of a motion to reconsider are 
located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen are located at 8 C.F.R. 
1 The Petitioner explained in his response to the Nebraska Service Center Director's request for evidence that ·'glamour 
photography is a genre of photography wherein subjects are portrayed in erotic poses ranging from fully clothed to 
nude." 
2 See Matter ofR-S-, ID# li64599(AAO Nov. 16, 2017). 
'On March 9, 2018, the Petitioner filed a second petition, SRC 18 112 50477, which the Director of the Texas Service 
Center approved on March 22, 2018. 
Matter of R-S-
§ 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion .that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility 
for the requested immigration benefit. 
In addition, section 203(b)(1)(A) of the Act makes vtsas available to foreign nationals with 
extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or 
athletics which has been demonstr'ated 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. 
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 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 criteria 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 meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether 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. 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 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 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010). 
2 
.
Matter of R-S-
II. ANALYSIS 
A. Motion to Reconsider 
On motion , the Petitioner .assert s that he received aw ards and prize s that constit ute "one time 
achievement of a major, international recognized award," because they " no doubt , bear national 
importance or top in the field," and are "truly comparable ... evidenc es [sic] for hi s eligibility." 
See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) , (4) . The record does not support his assertions and he has not 
demonstrat ed that we erred in our prior decision , in which we conclu ded that he did not allege or 
establish his receipt of a major , internationally recognized award. 
As the Petitioner did not establi sh his receipt of a major, internation ally recognized award, he mus t 
therefore satisfy at least three of the ten criteria listed at 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(h)(3 )(i)-(x). In our 
decision dismissing his appeal, we found that he met the display at artistic exhibitor s or showcases 
criterion , under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vii). On motion, the Petition er initially sta tes that he 
presen ted documentation relating to all ten criteria, but then claims that h e satisfi ed the following 
five criteria relating to: (1) receipt of lesser : nationally or internationally recogni zed prizes or 
awards, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) ; (2) memb ership in assoc iations that requir e o utstanding 
achievem ents of their memb ers, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii); (3) participation as a judge o f the work of 
others, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv); (4) original contributions of major significanc e in the field, 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v); (5) leading or critical role for organizat ions and establishments, 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)( 3)(viii); and (6) a high salary or other significantly high remuneration for se rvtces , 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 
While the Petitioner specifically alleges on motion that he satisfi ed the six crite ria menti oned abo ve, 
he has not substantiated his claims or establish ed that we erred in our previous decision. As relating 
to the prizes or awards criterion, he does not point to any evidenc e that confirm ed his prizes or 
awards we re recognized on a national or international level. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) . As 
relating to the membership in associations criterion , he does not reference any docum entation that 
showed how he became a member of any organizations or that v erified these entiti es requ ired 
outstanding achievements of their members , as judged by recogni zed national or international 
experts. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). As relating to the particip atio n as a judg e crite rion, he docs 
not discuss any documents that established he judged the work of others in pho tography or in an 
allied field. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv). As relating to the original contributi o ns criterion, 
although the record showed that he was an experienced photographe r, it did not illustrate that he had 
made contributions of major significance in the field. See 8 C.F.R . § 204 .5(h)(3)(v) . As relating to 
the leading and critical role criterion , the Petitioner claims to have " played critic al role in 
establishing in but the cri terion requ ires that he had 
performed a leading or critical role for qualifying organization s or esta blishments. He has not shown 
that constituted an organization or establishment. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii). Finally , a s relating to the high salary criterion , he does not identify documents 
that confirmed his high salary or other signific antly high remun eration as compared to oth ers in' the 
field of photography. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix) . To the extent that he maintain s he meets other 
3 
Mauer of R-5-
criteria, he has not pointed to any evidence substantiating his claim or demonstrated that we erred in 
our previous decision. 
The Petitioner's conclusory statements that he satisfied at least three of the ten criteria under 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), without explaining how we erred in our decision, and his repeating of 
arguments he previously made on appeal, do not meet the requirements for a motion to reconsider 
the matter. He has not established that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application 
of law or policy or that it was incorrect based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the 
time of the decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We will therefore deny his motion to reconsider 
the matter. 
B. Motion to Reopen 
We will similarly deny the Petitioner's motion to reopen the matter. A motion to reopen must state 
new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § J03.5(a)(2). On motion, the 
Petitioner has not presented either any new facts or new evidence in support of his eligibility for the 
classification. As such, he has not satisfied the requirements for a motion to reopen. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motion to reconsider does not demonstrate that our previous decision was incorrect, 
and he has not provided any documentation in support of his motion to reopen or established his 
eligibility for the classification. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
"FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
Cite as Matter of R-S-, ID# 1243229 (AAO June 15, 2018) 
4