dismissed EB-1A Case: Research

identifyingdatadeletedto
preventclearlyunwarranted
invasionofpersonalprivacy
PUBLICCOPY
U.S.Department of HomelandSecurity
U.S.CitizenshipandImmigrationServices
AdministrativeAppealsOffice(AAO)
20MassachusettsAve.,N.W.,MS2090
Washington,DC 20529-2090
U.S.Citizenship
- and Immigration
Services
DATE: NOV 0 3 ICE: TEXASSERVICECENTER FILE:
IN RE: Petitioner:
Beneficiary:
PETITION: ImmigrantPetitionfor Alien WorkerasanAlien of ExtraordinaryAbility Pursuantto
Section203(b)(1)(A)of theImmigrationandNationalityAct; 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)
ONBEHALFOFPETITIONER:
INSTRUCTIONS:
Enclosedpleasefind the decisionof the AdministrativeAppealsOffice in your case. All of the
documentsrelatedtothismatterhavebeenreturnedtotheofficethatoriginallydecidedyourcase.Please
beadvisedthatanyfurtherinquirythatyoumighthaveconcerningyourcasemustbemadetothatoffice.
If you believethe law wasinappropriatelyappliedby us in reachingour decision,or you haveadditional
informationthatyouwishto haveconsidered,youmayfile amotiontoreconsideror amotionto reopen.
Thespecificrequirementsfor filing sucha requestcanbefoundat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5.All motionsmustbe
submittedto the office thatoriginally decidedyour caseby filing a FormI-290B,Noticeof Appealor
Motion, with a feeof $630. Pleasebeawarethat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(i)requiresthat anymotionmust
befiled within 30daysof thedecisionthatthemotionseeksto reconsideror reopen.
Thankyou,
erryRhew
Chief,AdministrativeAppealsOffice
www.uscus.gov
Page2
DISCUSSION: The Director,TexasServiceCenter,deniedthe employment-basedimmigrant
visa petition on March 12, 2009. The AdministrativeAppealsOffice (AAO) dismissedthe
petitioner'sappealof thatdecisiononJanuary13,2010. Thematteris nowbeforetheAAO ona
motionto reopenandamotionto reconsider.Themotionswill bedismissed,thepreviousdecision
of theAAO will beaffirmed,andthepetitionwill remaindenied.
In orderto properlyfile a motion,theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(1)(iii)requiresthat the
motion must be "[a]ccompaniedby a statementabout whether or not the validity of the
unfavorabledecisionhasbeenor is the subjectof anyjudicial proceedingand,if so,the court,
nature,date,and statusor result of the proceeding." Furthermore,the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 103.5(a)(4)requiresthat "[a] motion that doesnot meet applicablerequirementsshall be
dismissed.In this case,therespondentfailed to submita statementregardingif the validity of
thedecisionof theAAO hasbeenor is subjectof anyjudicial proceeding.
Notwithstandingthe above,in the decisionof the AAO dismissingthe petitioner's original
appeal,theAAO foundthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthatthebeneficiarymetatleastthree
of theregulatorycriteriapursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). In fact, theAAO
found that the petitionerfailed to establishthe beneficiary'seligibility for any of the criteria
pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3). The AAO specificallyandthoroughly
discussedthe petitioner's evidenceand determinedthat the petitionerfailed to establishthe
beneficiary'seligibility for thepublishedmaterialcriterionpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(iii),the original contributionscriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v),the authorshipof scholarlyarticlescriterion pursuantto the regulationat 8
C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi),andtheleadingor critical role criterionpursuantto theregulationat 8
C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(viii).
A motionto reopenmuststatethe new factsto be providedandbe supportedby affidavitsor
otherdocumentaryevidence.8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2).Basedontheplainmeaningof "new,"anew
factis foundto beevidencethatwasnotavailableandcouldnothavebeendiscoveredor presented
in thepreviousproceeding.IA reviewof therecordof proceedingreflectsthatcounselindicatedon
Form I-290B,Noticeof Appealor Motion,that shewas"filing a motionto reopena decision."
Moreover,in counsel'scoverletter andtitle of her brief, sheindicatedthat it was a motionto
reopen.However,counselfailedto stateanynewfactsandfailedto supportthemotionwith any
affidavitsor otherdocumentaryevidencepursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(2).
Instead,counselrestatedthesameargumentsshemadeon appealandclaimedthat"we havecome
to thereluctant,but clear,beliefthatthewriterhadfirst madea determinationto rejecttheappeal
andthenproceededto find reasons,includingsometimestorturedmisreadingof clearevidenceand
gratuitouscriticismsthatwerenotgermaneto thecoreissues,tojustify thedecisionto dismissthis
appeal." Counselsubmitson motion no fact that could be considered"new" under8 C.F.R.
Theword"new"isdefmedas"1. havingexistedor beenmadefor onlya shorttime. . . 3.Justdiscovered,found,or
learned <new evidence> . . . ." WEBSTER'SII NEW RIVERSIDEUNIVERSTrYDICTIONARY792 (1984)(emphasis in
original).
Page3
§ 103.5(a)(2)and failed to submitaffidavitsor other documentaryevidence.Motions for the
reopeningof immigrationproceedingsare disfavoredfor the samereasonsas are petitionsfor
rehearingandmotionsfor a newtrial on thebasisof newlydiscoveredevidence.INSv. Doherty,
502U.S.314,323(1992)(citingINSv.Abudu,485U.S.94(1988)).A partyseekingto reopena
proceedingbearsa "heavyburden." INSv.Abudu,485U.S.at 110. With thecurrentmotion,the
petitionerhasnotmetthatburden.Themotiontoreopenwill bedismissed.
Notwithstandingthe above,althoughcounselindicatedon theForm I-290B, in her coverletter
andin thetitle of her brief that shewasfiling a motionto reopen,sheadditionallyarguedfor a
motionto reconsiderpursuantto theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3)in thebodyof herbrief.
A motion to reconsidermust statethe reasonsfor reconsiderationand be supportedby any
pertinentprecedentdecisionsto establishthatthedecisionwasbasedon anincorrectapplication
of law or U.S.CitizenshipandImmigration(USCIS)policy. 8 C.F.R.§ 103.5(a)(3).A motionto
reconsiderconteststhecorrectnessof theoriginal decisionbasedon thepreviousfactualrecord,
as opposedto a motion to reopenwhich seeksa new hearingbasedon new or previously
unavailableevidence.SeeMatterof Cerna,20I&N Dec.399,403(BIA 1991).
A motion to reconsidercannotbe usedto raisea legal argumentthat could havebeenraised
earlier in the proceedings.Rather,the "additional legal arguments"that may be raisedin a
motionto reconsidershouldflow from newlaw or a denovo legaldeterminationreachedin its
decisionthatmaynothavebeenaddressedby theparty. Further,a motionto reconsideris not a
processby which a party may submit,in essence,the samebrief presentedon appealandseek
reconsiderationby generallyallegingerrorin theprior decision. Instead,themovingpartymust
specifythefactualandlegalissuesraisedon appealthatweredecidedin erroror overlookedin
theinitial decisionor mustshowhow a changein law materiallyaffectstheprior decision. See
MatterofMedrano,20I&N Dec.216,219(BIA 1990,1991).
On motion,counselarguesthat the documentaryevidencesubmittedat the time of the original
filing of the petition and on appealdemonstratedthe beneficiary'seligibility for the original
contributionscriterion,the scholarlyarticlescriterion,andthe leadingor critical role criterion.
In counsel'sbrief, shedid not contestthe decisionof the AAO or offer additionalarguments
regardingthe publishedmaterialcriterion. The AAO, therefore,considersthis issueto be
abandoned.Sepulvedav. U.S.Att'y Gen.,401F.3d 1226,1228n. 2 (11thCir. 2005);Hristov v.
Roark,No.09-CV-27312011,2011WL 4711885at*1, *9 (E.D.N.Y.Sept.30,2011)(thecourt
foundtheplaintiff's claimsto beabandonedashefailedto raisethemon appealto theAAO). In
addition,counselagainarguesthatthedirectorerredin denyingthepetitionwithoutfirst issuing
a requestfor additionalevidencepursuantto the regulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 103.2(b)(8),an issue
addressedby theAAO in its prior decision. Counsel,however,failed to submit"any pertinent
precedentdecisionsto establishthatthedecisionwasbasedon anincorrectapplicationof law or
Servicepolicy." Instead,counselgenerallydisagreeswith thefindingsof theAAO.
For instance,regardingthe AAO's determinationthat 15citationsto thepetitioner'swork was
insufficientto establishthebeneficiary'scontributionof majorsignificanceto thefield, counsel
arguesthat 15 citations "demonstratesa wide level of interest" in the petitioner's work.
Page4
Regarding,theleadingor critical role criterion,theAAO determinedthatthepetitionerfailedto
submitsufficient evidenceto distinguishthe beneficiary'srole from that of otherswithin the
companyso asto establishhis leadingor critical role. Counselrefersto the recommendation
lettersfro andclaimsthat"[t]he nationalacclaimrequirement
is clearlymetby thesetestimonials."Counselfurtherarguesthatthetwo self-servinglettersby
thepetitionerdemonstratedthatthebeneficiaryperformedin a leadingor critical role. Counsel
alsostatesthattheletterfrom thebeneficiary'semployerestablishesboththeleadingandcritical
roleof thebeneficiarywithin SRDaswell asSRD'sdistinguishedreputation.
Again,amotionto reconsideris notaprocessby whichapartymaysubmit,in essence,thesame
brief presentedon appealand seekreconsiderationby generallyalleging error in the prior
decision. The AAO thoroughlyaddressedthe petitioner'sevidence,including the reference
letters,in thedecisionandfoundthatthepetitionerfailedto establishthebeneficiary'seligibility
for theoriginal contributionscriterionandtheleadingor critical role criterion. In addition,the
AAO found that the directordid not abusehis discretionaryauthorityby denyingthe petition
withoutfirst issuinga requestfor additionalevidence.2Themotionto reconsiderdoesnot allege
thattheissues,asraisedon appeal,involvedtheapplicationof precedentto a novelsituation,or
thatthereis newprecedentor a changein law that affectstheAAO's prior decision. As noted
above,a motionto reconsidermustincludespecificallegationsasto how the AAO erredasa
matterof fact or law in its prior decision,andit mustbe supportedby pertinentlegalauthority.
Becausetherespondenthasfailed to raisesuchallegationsof error in her motionto reconsider,
counsel'sargumentsarenotsufficientto meettherequirementsof a motionto reconsider.
However,althoughnot raisedas an issueby counsel,the AAO finds that it mustreconsiderits
previousf'mdingregardingthebeneficiary'sscholarlyarticlesin light of theU.S.Courtof Appeals
for theNinth Circuit (NinthCircuit)reviewof thedenialof apetitionfiled underthisclassification.
Kazarianv. USCIS,596F.3d1115(9thCir.2010).AlthoughthecourtupheldtheAAO's decisionto
denythepetition,thecourttook issuewith theAAO's evaluationof evidencesubmittedto meeta
givenevidentiarycriterion.3With respectto thecriteriaat 8 C.F.R.§§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and(vi), the
courtconcludedthatwhileUSCISmayhaveraisedlegitimateconcernsaboutthesignificanceof the
evidencesubmittedtomeetthosetwocriteria,thoseconcernsshouldhavebeenraisedin asubsequent
"final meritsdetermination."Id.
ThecourtstatedthattheAAO's evaluationrestedon an improperunderstandingof theregulations.
Insteadof parsingthesignificanceof evidenceaspartof theinitial inquiry,thecourtstatedthat"the
properprocedureis to count the typesof evidenceprovided(which the AAO did)," and if the
petitionerfailedto submitsufficientevidence,"theproperconclusionisthattheapplicanthasfailedto
satisfytheregulatoryrequirementof threetypesof evidence(astheAAO concluded)."Id. at 1122
2It is unclearwhatremedycounselsoughtin referenceto herargumentregardingthedirector'sfailureto issuean
RFE. It wouldhaveservedno usefulpurposeto remandthecasefor issuanceof anRFEwhencounselhadthe
opportunityto submitadditionaldocumentsonappeal,which,assheacknowledgesonmotionthatshedid.
3Specifically,thecourtstatedthattheAAO hadunilaterallyimposednovel,substantive,or evidentiaryrequirements
beyondthosesetforthin theregulationsat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv)and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(vi).
Page5
(citingto 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)).Thecourtalsoexplainedthe"final meritsdetermination"asthe
corollaryto thisprocedure:
If a petitionerhassubmittedthe requisiteevidence,USCISdetermineswhetherthe
evidencedemonstratesbotha"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof
that smallpercentagewho haverisento the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2),and "that the alien has sustainednationalor international
acclaimand that his or her achievementshave beenrecognizedin the field of
expertise."8C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).Only alienswhoseachievementshavegarnered
"sustainednationalor internationalacclaim"areeligiblefor an"extraordinaryability"
visa.8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i).
Id. at 1119.
Thus,Kazariansetsforth a two-partapproachwherethe evidenceis first countedandthen
consideredin thecontextof afinalmeritsdetermination.
The plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(vi)requires"[e]videnceof the
alien'sauthorshipof scholarlyarticlesin thefield, in professionalor majortradepublicationsor
other major media." In its prior decision,althoughacknowledgingthat the beneficiaryhad
authoredseveralscholarlyarticles,theAAO foundthearticleswerenotsufficientastheydid not
demonstratethatthebeneficiaryhad"attracteda widelevelof interestin hisfield commensurate
with sustainednationalor internationalacclaim." Pursuantto Kazarian,596F.3dat 1122,the
petitionersubmittedsufficientdocumentationestablishingthat the beneficiarymeetsthe plain
languageof theregulationat8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3)(iv).Therefore,AAO withdrawsitsfindingsfor
thiscriterion.
In accordancewith the Kazarian opinion, the AAO must next conduct a final merits
determination.TheAAO will not limit its reviewto acomparisonof thebeneficiarywith others
of a similarageor with a similarlengthof time in his field; rather,thebeneficiarymustbe
consideredwith all in his field. In thatcontext,theAAO mustconsiderwhetheror not the
petitionerhasdemonstrated:(1) a"levelof expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof that
small percentagewho have risen to the very top of the[ir] field of endeavor,"8 C.F.R.
§204.5(h)(2);and(2) "that thealienhassustainednationalor internationalacclaimandthathis
or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."Seesection203(b)(1)(A)(i)
of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3).SeealsoKazarian,596F.3d
at 1115. Thepetitionerestablishedthatthebeneficiarymetoneof thecriteria,in which at least
threearerequiredundertheregulationat 8 C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
In evaluatingtheAAO's final meritsdetermination,theAAO mustlook at thetotalityof the
evidenceto determinethebeneficiary'seligibility pursuantto section203(b)(1)(A)of theAct.
In thiscase,thebeneficiaryhasconductedroutineresearch,hasauthoredsomescholarlyarticles,
andservesasa projectleadfor thepetitioner.However,theaccomplishmentsof thebeneficiary
Page6
fall far shortof establishingthathe"is oneof thatsmallpercentagewhohaverisento theverytop
of thefield of endeavor"andthathe"hassustainednationalor internationalacclaimandthathis
or herachievementshavebeenrecognizedin thefield of expertise."See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2),
section203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct, 8U.S.C.§ 1153(b)(1)(A)(i),and8C.F.R.§204.5(h)(3).
Theregulationat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3)providesthat"[a] petitionfor analienof extraordinary
ability mustbe accompaniedby evidencethat the alien hassustainednationalor international
acclaimandthat his or her achievementshavebeenrecognizedin the field of expertise." The
weightgivento evidencesubmittedto fulfill the criteriaat 8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(3),therefore,
dependson the extent to which such evidencedemonstrates,reflects,or is consistentwith
sustainednationalor internationalacclaimat the very top of the alien's field of endeavor. A
lower evidentiary standard would not be consistent with the regulatory definition of
"extraordinaryability" as"a level of expertiseindicatingthattheindividualis oneof thatsmall
percentagewhohaverisento theverytopof thefield of endeavor."8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
A reviewof thedocumentaryevidencereflectsthatthepetitionersubmitted10scholarlyarticles
thatwerepublishedin professionalor majortradepublicationsor othermajormedia. However,
whencomparedto the authorshipof (94 articlesand4 books),it appearsthat
is far abovethe accomplishmentsof thebeneficiary. Althoughthebeneficiarymet the
scholarlyarticlescriterionthroughhis co-authorshipandauthorshipof scholarlyarticles,he has
not establishedthat the minimal publicationof sucharticlesdemonstratesa level of expertise
indicatingthathe is amongthat smallpercentagewho haverisento thevery top of the field of
endeavor.See8 C.F.R.§ 204.5(h)(2).
Further,as authoringscholarlyarticlesis inherentto scholars,the AAO will also evaluatea
citation history or other evidenceof the impact of the beneficiary'sarticlesto determinethe
impact and recognitionhis work hashad on the field and whethersuch influencehasbeen
sustained. For example,numerousindependentcitations for an article authoredby the
beneficiarywould provide solid evidencethat his work has beenrecognizedand that other
researchershavebeeninfluencedby hiswork. Suchananalysisatthefinal meritsdetermination
stageis appropriatepursuantto Kazarian,596F. 3d at 1122. Ontheotherhand,few or no
citations of an article authoredby the beneficiarymay indicatethat his work has gonelargely
unnoticedby his field. The petitioner submitteddocumentaryevidencereflecting that the
beneficiary'swork hasbeencited 15times. While thesecitationsdemonstratea little interestin
hispublishedwork,theyarenot sufficientto demonstratethathis articleshaveattracteda levelof
interestin his field commensuratewith sustainednationalor internationalacclaimattheverytop
of hisfield.
Althoughthepetitionerfailed to demonstratethatthebeneficiarymetthe original contributions
criterionandtheleadingor critical role criterion,thepetitionerbasedthebeneficiary'seligibility
on recommendationletters. USCISmay, in its discretion,useasadvisoryopinion statements
submittedas experttestimony. SeeMatter of CaronInternational,19 I&N Dec. 791, 795
(Comm'r 1988). However,USCISis ultimatelyresponsiblefor makingthefinal determination
Page7
regardingan alien'seligibility for thebenefitsought. Id. Thesubmissionof lettersof support
from thebeneficiary'spersonalcontactsis not presumptiveevidenceof eligibility; USCISmay
evaluatethecontentof thoselettersasto whethertheysupportthealien'seligibility. Seeid. at
795;seealsoMatter of V-K-,24 I&N Dec.500,n.2 (BIA 2008). Furthermore,the petitioner
claimedthe beneficiary's eligibility for the leading or critical role criterion basedon one
organization,in which the plain languageof the regulationat 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii)
requiresaleadingor criticalrolewith morethanoneorganizationor establishment.
The AAO cannot ignore that the statute requires the petitioner to submit "extensive
documentation"of the beneficiary'ssustainednationalor internationalacclaim. Seesection
203(b)(1)(A)of the Act. The commentaryfor the proposedregulationsimplementingsection
203(b)(1)(A)(i)of theAct providesthatthe"intentof Congressthataveryhighstandardbesetfor
aliensof extraordinaryability is reflectedin this regulationby requiringthepetitionerto present
moreextensivedocumentationthanthatrequired"for lesserclassifications.56 Fed.Reg.30703,
30704(July5, 1991).Thepetitioner'ssubmissionof two recommendationlettersfor theoriginal
contributioncriterion and two self-servingletters for the leadingor critical role criterion is
insufficientto establishthebeneficiary'ssustainednationalor internationalacclaimrequiredfor
thishighly restrictiveclassification.
Reviewof therecorddoesnot establishthatthebeneficiaryhasdistinguishedhimselfto suchan
extentthathemaybesaidto haveachievedsustainednationalor internationalacclaimandto be
within thesmallpercentageattheverytop of his field. Theevidenceis notpersuasivethatthe
beneficiary'sachievementssethim significantlyabovealmostall othersin his field at anational
or internationallevel.
Thepetitionwill bedeniedfor theabovestatedreasons,with eachconsideredasanindependentand
alternativebasisfor denial. In visapetitionproceedings,theburdenof provingeligibility for the
benefitsoughtremainsentirelywith thepetitioner.Section291of theAct, 8 U.S.C.§ 1361.The
petitionerhasnotsustainedthatburden.
ORDER: Themotionto reopenandthemotionto reconsideraredismissed,thedecisionof the
AAO datedJanuary13,2010,is affirmed,andthepetitionremainsdenied.