dismissed EB-1A Case: Radiation Oncology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF B-J-
.) 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 26,2017 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-140, IMMIGRANT PETITION FOR ALIEN WORKER 
The Petitioner, a radiation oncologist, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability in 
the sciences. 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 th'e Texas Service Center denied the Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien 
Worker. We dismissed the Petitioner's appeal, and she has filed a motion to reopen and a motion to 
reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motions. 
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). A petitioner can demonstrate 
sustained acclaim and the 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 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. 
1 
·1 
1 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.O. 
Wash. 2011), aff"d, 683 F.3d. 1030 (9th Cir. 2012); Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 2010) (holding 
that the "truth is to be determined not by the quantity of evidence alone but by its quality" and that U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS) examines "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 of B-J-
A motion to reopen is based on documentary evidence of new facts, and a motion to reconsider is 
based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The requirements of a motion to reopen are 
located at 8 C.F .R. § 103 .5( a)(2), and the requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 
8 C.F.R. § 1 03.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates 
eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. ANALYSIS 
In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the Petitioner satisfied three of the regulatory criteria at 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x) -the judging criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv), the scholarly 
articles criterion under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi), and the high salary criterion under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(ix). As a result, we conducted a final merits determination and concluded that: she 
did not attain sustained national or international acclaim, her achievements have not been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation , and she is not one of that small percentage who has 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A)(i) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(2), (3); see also Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. 
In support of her motion to reopen, the Petitioner submits a reference letter from 
medical director at the and her updated curriculum 
vitae. states that the Petitioner joined in September 2016 and explains why he 
selected her to do so. In addition, indicates that the Petitioner was invited to present 
her recent study at a conference in October 2016, which will be published in early 2017. The 
Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of the filing and continuing through adjudication. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l) , As 
these events including the updated information on her curriculum vitae, occurred after the filing of 
her petition, they will not be considered as evidence of her eligibility. Moreover, while 
concludes that the Petitioner is one of a very few oncology physicians that have 
knowledge of proton therapy and clinical skills to prescribe and manage treatment, he did not 
demonstrate that such traits and skills have garnered the Petitioner the required national or 
international acclaim for this highly restrictive classification. Accordingly, the evidence that the 
Petitioner submits on motion does not overcome the grounds of our decision. 
Regarding the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner claims 
that we misapplied the "preponderance of 
the evidence" standard. In addition, the Petitioner highlights her accomplishments , which we 
evaluated in our final merits determination, and discusses letter. 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). We do not consider new facts or evidence in a motion to 
reconsider. A motion to reconsider must be supported by a pertinent precedent or adopted decision, 
statutory or regulatory provision, or statement of USCIS or Department of Homeland Security 
policy. Here, the Petitioner does not explain or establish how our decision applied 
a higher standard 
than "preponderance of the evidence." In addition, the Petitioner does not address the issues raised 
2 
Matter of B-J-
in our final merits determination. For these reasons, the Petitioner has not established that we 
incorrectly applied law or policy in our decision. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner's motions do not overcome the grounds in our prior decision, and she has not shown 
that she qualifies as an individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of B-J-, ID# 357284 (AAO Apr. 26, 2017) 
3