dismissed EB-1A Case: Psychology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 7818364 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: SEPT. 23, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a psychologist, seeks classification as an individual 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 Petitioner had 
satisfied only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which she must meet 
at least three. We subsequently dismissed the Petitioner 's appeal of that decision and the matter is 
now before us on a motion to 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 the motion to reconsider. 
II. MOTION REQUIREMENTS 
A motion to reconsider must ( 1) state the reasons for reconsideration and be supported by any pertinent 
precedent decisions to establish that the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, and (2) establish that the decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence in the record of proceedings at the time of the initial decision. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(3). 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i) limits our authority to reconsider to instances where the 
Petitioner has shown "proper cause" for that action. Thus, to merit reconsideration , a petitioner must 
not only meet the formal filing requirements , but also show proper cause for granting the motion. We 
cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirement s. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
II. 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 a multi-part analysis. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 
international recognition of his or her achievements in the field through 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 sufficient qualifying 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). 
III. ANALYSIS 
The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has established on motion that our decision to dismiss 
her appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy. The Petitioner must specify 
the factual and legal issues raised on appeal that were decided in error or overlooked in our initial 
decision. 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner satisfied two of the ten initial evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, she submitted evidence that she had participated 
as a judge of the work of others in her field and authored scholarly articles in professional publications, 
thus satisfying the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and (vi). We also acknowledged the 
Petitioner's claim that she met four additional criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3), discussed the evidence 
relating to each, and explained why the evidence was insufficient to establish that any additional 
criteria had been met. 
On motion, the Petitioner submits a brief repeating the same arguments she made on appeal without 
demonstrating how we improperly adjudicated her appeal or incorrectly applied law or policy. The 
Petitioner's allegations of error are limited to claims that "[r]egrettably, AAO failed to properly 
analyze additional evidence" submitted to establish that she also met the criteria relating to awards, 
membership in associations that require outstanding achievements, original contributions of major 
significance, and performance in a leading or critical role for organizations that have a distinguished 
reputation. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (v), and (viii). 
However, the Petitioner does not specify what "additional evidence" was overlooked in our 
adjudication of the appeal. The record reflects that the Petitioner's appeal included a completed Form 
I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, a brief: and a copy of the Director's denial decision. The 
Petitioner stated in the appellate brief that she was submitting additional evidence related to the awards 
criterion, but the appeal did not include this or any other additional evidence. 
Other than claiming that our decision overlooked this unidentified "additional evidence," the motion 
brief is nearly identical to the appellate brief, without any mention or discussion of our decision 
2 
dismissing the appeal. The Petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by 
broadly disagreeing with our conclusions; the motion must demonstrate how we erred as a matter of 
law or policy. See Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006) (finding that a motion to 
reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, the same brief and seek 
reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision.) 
Therefore, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that our appellate decision was incorrect. We 
conducted a de nova review of the record on appeal, thoroughly analyzed the evidence before us, and 
ultimately concluded that the Petitioner met only two of the ten initial evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. 
204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Petitioner has not demonstrated how we erred or demonstrated that we 
misapplied law or policy in analyzing the evidence before us on appeal. Accordingly, the Petitioner 
did not satisfy the requirements for a motion to reconsider. 
In addition, the Petitioner's motion does 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 and, if so, the 
court, nature, date, and status or result of the proceeding." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iii). A motion that 
does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not established that our previous 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. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3