dismissed EB-1A Case: Real Estate Development

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 6783238 
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 development director, 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 one of the ten initial evidentiary criteria for this classification, of which he must meet at 
least three. The Petitioner appealed that decision to our office, and we dismissed his appeal. We 
determined that the Petitioner met the requisite three evidentiary criteria but concluded in a final merits 
determination that he did not establish his sustained national or international acclaim and that he is 
among the small percentage of individuals at the very top of his field. 
The matter is now before us on a motion to reconsider. The Petitioner submits a brief, together with 
new and previously submitted evidence, and asserts that he has established his eligibility for the 
requested classification. 
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 oflaw 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 reopen or 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 (such as submission of a properly 
completed Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with the correct fee), but also show proper cause 
for granting the motion. We cannot grant a motion that does not meet applicable requirements. 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 his 
appeal was based on an incorrect application of law 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 three of the initial evidentiary 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). Specifically, he established that he had participated as a judge 
of the work of others, authored scholarly articles in a professional publication, and performed in a 
leading or critical role for organizations with a distinguished reputation. Moreover, we conducted a 
final merits determination in which we reviewed the totality of the record, including evidence relating 
to additional claimed criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). 1 Based on this review, we found that the 
Petitioner did not establish his sustained national or international acclaim and that he is one of that 
small percentage at the very top of his field of endeavor. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
On motion, the Petitioner asserts that he is submitting "additional proof' to establish that his participation 
on judging committees for museum and theatre reconstruction projects in the city ofl I Russia is 
"definitely indicative of the Petitioner's sustained national acclaim" because both were "highly 
distinguished projects." The Petitioner does not claim that we incorrectly applied the law or USCIS 
policy in our assessment of the previously submitted evidence related to his judging experience and 
1 The Petitioner also claimed to meet the criteria related to lesser nationally or internationally recognized awards, 
memberships in associations that require outstanding achievements, published materials in professional or major trade 
publications, and original contributions of major significance. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), (ii), (iii) and (v). 
2 
instead requests that we consider the new evidence related to these projects, which is submitted for the 
first time on motion. However, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was 
incorrect based on the evidence ofrecord at the time of the initial decision. See 8 C.F.R. §103.5(a)(3). 
The Petitioner also asserts that we "regrettably ... failed to accept that the Petitioner had an extremely 
prestigious and important judging appointment as a member of the I I Committee under the 
Russian State Duma of the VI convocation, i.e. the Russian Parliament." Here, the Petitioner maintains 
that the previously submitted evidence "clearly establishes the Petitioner's appointment by 
preponderance of the evidence." 
In our prior decision, we clearly explained why the evidence submitted to document the Petitioner's 
appointment to this committee (also referred to as thel h was 
insufficient. The Petitioner relied on his own affidavit and on a letter from l I, I I 
~--------~ whose own affiliation to the ~ is not documented in the record. The 
Petitioner did not submit evidence from thel I of the Russian State Duma confirming his 
membership on this council, nor is there are primary source information to support I I's 
claims regarding the membership requirements of thd I We weighed the probative value of the 
affidavit and letter and we concluded that the unsupported testimonial evidence alone was insufficient 
to support the Petitioner's claims regarding his membership in thee=] The Petitioner disagrees 
with our assessment of this evidence; however, the Petitioner does not address how we erred as a 
matter of law or policy in our evaluation. 
The Petitioner also disagrees with our determination that he was not the rec1p1ent of a 2007 
Commercial Real Estate (CRE) Award. In our decision, we noted that the record reflects that the 
award in question was "given to I I for Participation in Realization of project I I 
I I We emphasized that "[t]he description of this type of evidence in the 
regulation provides that the focus should be on 'the alien's' receipt of the awards or prizes, as opposed 
to his or her employer's receipt of the awards or prizes." 2 The Petitioner indicates that he established 
his "central role" in his employer's receipt of the award through his previously submitted affidavit, 
but does not claim that he was the direct recipient or claim that we incorrectly applied the law or 
USCIS policy in our assessment of this evidence. We also determined that even if the Petitioner had 
established that he was the recipient of the CRE award, he did not show that this award from 2007, or 
other awards he received as a student in 2000, are indicative of the sustained national or international 
acclaim required by section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act. The Petitioner does not address this conclusion 
on motion or explain how his claimed receipt of a CRE award in 2007, even if it was a nationally 
recognized award, evidences his sustained acclaim in his field. 
Finally, the Petitioner claims that our prior decision "failed to comment on" evidence of "industry­
wide acceptance of the beneficiary's developed approach as a nationwide industry standard," and 
resubmits expert opinion letters from~-------~ and l J We addressed 
both letters in our decision, noting that the authors indicated that they based their opinions on the 
information provided in the Petitioner's affidavit rather than their own professional knowledge of his 
work. We determined that the letters summarized the Petitioner's professional accomplishments and 
2 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form 1-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJ 1-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html. 
3 
employment history, but did not explain how the Petitioner's achievements have been considered by 
the field to be of major significance, or how he is viewed by the overall field as being among that 
small percentage at the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Turning to the Petitioner's specific claim that the letters ofl I and established 
"industry-wide acceptance" of his own "developed approach," we note that states that the 
Petitioner "successfully applied his innovative methodologies and approaches t .__ _____ __.and 
I I solutions in major construction projects across Russia." He does not comment on an 
"industry-wide acceptance" of the Petitioner's methodologies or their incorporation into a "nationwide 
industry standard."! lstates that the Petitioner developed a "unique evaluation method" that 
is "applicable to any development project to differentiate and improve the production process." He 
notes the "potential" of the approach and states that the method "is of great interest to all in the 
manufacturing field." However, like I I he does not confirm that there has been "industry­
wide acceptance" of the approach or indicate that the Petitioner's methodology become a "nationwide 
industry standard." 
The Petitioner's motion to reconsider also includes a new expert opinion letter dated April 24, 2019 
froml land recent evidence pertaining to the Beneficiary's company.I I I I as "proof of the evidence[ d] national interest in the Petitioner's continued engagement in 
his field." As discussed, a motion to reconsider must establish that our prior decision was incorrect 
based on the evidence of record at the time of the initial decision and does not allow for the 
consideration of new evidence. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that our appellate decision was 
incorrect. We conducted a de novo review of the record on appeal, thoroughly analyzed the evidence, 
and ultimately concluded that while the Petitioner satisfied at least three of the evidentiary criteria, he 
did not establish the sustained national or international acclaim required for this highly restrictive 
classification. The Petitioner does not show how we erred and or demonstrate that we misapplied law 
or policy to the facts presented. 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. 
4