dismissed EB-1A Case: Religious Writing And Disability Advocacy

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 28, 2024 In Re: 33446317 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a religious faith writer and advocate for the disabled, seeks classification as an alien 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 Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish that he met the initial evidentiary requirements for this classification through evidence of 
either a major, internationally-recognized award or meeting at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria 
under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). After we dismissed the Petitioner ' s initial appeal, the Director dismissed 
four motions. In our most recent decision, we summarily dismissed a subsequent appeal. The matter 
is now before us on combined motions to reopen and reconsider. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). Upon review, we will dismiss the 
motion. 
A motion to reopen must state new facts and be supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(2). A motion to reconsider must establish that our prior 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). Because the scope of a motion is 
limited to the prior decision, we will only review the latest decision in these proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.5(a)(l)(i) , (ii). We may grant motions that satisfy these requirements and demonstrate eligibility 
for the requested benefit. See Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992) (requiring that 
new evidence have the potential to change the outcome). 
On motion, the Petitioner submits emails between himself and his former attorneys in which they 
explain their decision to not pursue an appeal. He expresses his regrets at his attorneys' failure to 
submit an appeal brief, and asks that we nevertheless consider his assertions regarding the merits of 
his petition. However, the Petitioner does not assert that our summary dismissal was erroneous, or 
provide evidence which would support such an assertion. He also does not seek to establish that our 
summary dismissal was based upon an incorrect application of law or policy and was incorrect based 
on the evidence of record at the time of the decision. Therefore, the motions will be dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
Although we dismiss the motions as explained above, we will briefly discuss the Petitioner's brief 
regarding the merits of his petition. In our decision of April 23, 2020, we agreed with the Director's 
conclusion that the Petitioner met the criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii), relating to his authorship 
of scholarly articles in his field. We also discussed at length the evidence the Petitioner submitted in 
support of the two remaining evidentiary criteria he claimed to meet, which relate to lesser nationally 
or internationally recognized awards and published materials about him and his work in the field, and 
concluded that he met neither criterion. 1 
In support of his claim under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i), the Petitioner has provided further evidence 
with his motions regarding the nomination process for his award. But this 
evidence reinforces that the award is given for contributions to the Catholic Church, and not for 
excellence in the Petitioner's field of endeavor. As we indicated in our initial decision on appeal, the 
profiles of other winners shows that they received their awards for a variety of activities related to the 
Catholic Church, and in many cases for unexplained service to the church. This evidence has not 
established that the Petitioner meets all of the elements of this criterion. 
Regarding the Petitioner's claim under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii), which requires evidence of 
published materials about him and his work, the Petitioner has provided evidence concerning the 
publication date, author, and title of the previously submitted articles. In addition to the previously 
acknowledged article in American Ideals, this evidence confirms that two of these materials were 
published in the East African Standard onl Iand 28, 1999, and one in the Kenya Times on 
1 11996. 
However, the additional evidence does not establish that any of these media are professional or major 
trade publications, or other major media, as required under this criterion. A letter from the publisher 
(Standard Group) of the East African Standard (now The Standard) states that it is a leading 
multimedia publishing house in Kenya and that the newspaper has been in existence since 1902, and 
other evidence suggests that the Standard Group is one of four "main players" in multimedia in Kenya. 
But USCIS need not rely on the self-promotional material of the publisher. See Braga v. Poulos, No. 
CV 06 5105 SJO (C. D. CA July 6, 2007) ajf'd 2009 WL 604888 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that self­
serving assertions on the cover of a magazine as to the magazine's status is not reliable evidence of 
major media). Whether a certain medium qualifies under this criterion depends upon factors such as 
the intended audience and its relative circulation, readership, or viewership. See generally 6 USCIS 
Policy ManualF.2(B)(1). The broad statements concerning the Standard Group's status is insufficient 
to establish that the East African Standard is or was a major medium. 
As for the other two publications, the evidence does not show that they are qualifying media. Notably, 
the record indicates only that the Kenya Times went out of publication several years before the filing 
1 As the Petitioner did not challenge the Director's decision regarding two additional evidentiary criteria at 
8 C.F.R. §§ 204.5(h)(3)(v) and (viii), we concluded that the Petitioner's claim to those criteria had been waived. 
2 
of the instant petition. And the availability of American Ideals on the internet is insufficient, as the 
sole factor, to demonstrate that it qualifies as a major medium. 
Finally, we note that much of the evidence submitted with the Petitioner's current motion concerns 
recent events which have occurred well after the filing of his petition. But eligibility must be 
established at the time of filing. 8 C.F .R. § § 103 .2(b )( 1 ), ( 12); Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 
49 (Reg'! Comm'r 1971 ). A petition cannot be approved at a future date after the petitioner becomes 
eligible under a new set of facts. Matter of Izummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998). That 
decision, citing Matter of Bardouille, 18 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 1981), further provides that USCIS 
cannot "consider facts that come into being only subsequent to the filing of a petition." Id. at 176. 
Thus, while we dismiss the Petitioner's combined motions because they do not establish that our 
summary dismissal of his appeal was in error, we note that even if we were to consider his assertions 
and evidence regarding the merits of his petition, they would not establish his eligibility as an 
individual of extraordinary ability. 
ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
3