dismissed EB-1A Case: Strategic Port Planning

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re : 8205521 
Motion on Administrative Appeals Office Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : JUNE 2, 2020 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a strategic port planner, 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 Nebraska Service Center concluded, in the initial decision and on motion, that the 
record did not establish that the Petitioner met any of the ten initial evidentiary criteria listed at 
8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x), or that he would continue work in his area of expertise in the United 
States. We dismissed his subsequent appeal, concluding that, while the evidence established that the 
Petitioner would continue work in his area of expertise, be had not submitted the required initial 
evidence of either a one-time achievement or documents that meet at least three of the ten criteria. 
The matter is now before us on a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. On motion, the Petitioner 
submits additional evidence and asserts that he meets three criteria in addition to the two criteria we 
found that he meets in our previous decision. 
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 combined motions to 
reconsider and reopen . 
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). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth two options for satisfying this classification's initial evidence 
requirements. First, a petitioner can demonstrate 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 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. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
A motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a motion to reopen 
is based on documentary evidence of new facts. 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. The requirements of a 
motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), and the requirements of a motion to reopen 
are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). We may grant a motion that satisfies these requirements and 
demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 1 
II. ANALYSIS 
The record reflects that the Petitioner is a strategic port planner with more than 25 years of experience 
in maritime and civil infrastructure development. In dismissing the appeal, we determined that the 
Petitioner satisfied the evidentiary requirements of only two of the initial evidentiary criteria, relating 
to leading or critical role at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii) and high salary at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ix). 2 
In the Petitioner's motion to reconsider, he argues that he submitted evidence showing that he meets 
two of the previously claimed criteria, membership in associations at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) and 
original contributions at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), plus a third criterion, scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), that he had not previously claimed.3 The Petitioner asserts error in our findings 
regarding those previously claimed criteria, and presents additional documentation. Upon consideration 
of the Petitioner's claims and evidence on motion, we do not find that he has met any regulatory criteria 
beyond the two previously granted. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or .fields. 
8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii) 
1 The Petitioner did 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)(C). A motion that does not meet applicable requirements shall be dismissed. 
8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(4). 
2 On motion, the Petitioner does not claim to meet the previously claimed criterion related to published material in certain 
media at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iii). 
3 Because the Petitioner did not previously claim to have satisfied the scholarly articles criterion, we did not err by failing to 
consider it. A post-appellate motion to reopen is not the proper forum to advance new claims of eligibility that the Petitioner 
did not advance at any prior stage in the proceeding. We note that a petitioner abandons issues not raised on appeal. See 
Sepulveda v. US. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2005); see also, Hristov v. Roark, No. 09-CV-27312011, 
2011 WL 4711885 at *1, *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2011) (the comi found the plaintiffs claims to be abandoned as he failed 
to raise them on appeal to the AAO). Notwithstanding the foregoing, we further note that documentation regarding the 
Petitioner's master's thesis by which he claims to meet this criterion, indicating it has been digitally archived at the 
University ofl I library but is "not available from this repository", does not establish that the thesis was published 
in professional or major trade publications or other major media. 
2 
In our appellate decision, we considered the Petitioner's membership in the World Association for 
Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC) and his position on the board of the Australian Logistics 
Council (ALC), but found that the Petitioner had not established that membership in those associations 
requires outstanding achievements of its members as judged by recognized national or international 
experts in their disciplines or fields. The Petitioner does not contend that we erred in our determination 
concerning PIANC or ALC, nor does the Petitioner introduce new evidence relevant to that 
determination. 
On motion, the Petitioner argues for the first time that he meets this criterion based on his having been 
"recently appointed as an Independent Director on the Board of Directors of a distinguished company, 
I I" Regarding the new evidence of the Petitioner's membership, we note that 
this evidence postdates the filing of the petition in this matter. The Petitioner submits an email dated 
August 2018 from.__ ______ ___. group managing director fol'LJ conf~rmingl the Petitioner's 
intent to apply for the position oflndependent Director, and documents regardin board meetings 
in 2019 that the Petitioner attended as a director of the company. The Petitioner did not demonstrate 
that his membership with~ occurred prior to or at the time of his initial filing in November 2017. 
The Petitioner must establish that all eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been 
satisfied from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); 
Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l 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 Izwnmi, 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. We will therefore not consider this new evidence on motion. 
In light of the foregoing, the Petitioner did not establish, on motion, that he meets the requirements of this 
criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient#fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions o_f major significance in the.field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) 
In order to satisfy this criterion, petitioners must establish that not only have they made original 
contributions, but also that those contributions have been of major significance in the field. For 
example, a petitioner may show that the contributions have been widely implemented throughout the 
field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have otherwise risen to a level of major 
significance. The phrase "major significance" is not superfluous and, thus, it has some meaning. See 
Silverman v. Eastrich Multiple Investor Fund, L.P., 51 F. 3d 28, 31 (3rd Cir. 1995) quoted inAPWU 
v. Potter, 343 F.3d 619,626 (2nd Cir. Sep 15, 2003). 
In our appellate decision, we stated that the Petitioner had not identified specific contributions or 
shown those contributions to be of ma·or si nificance in the field. On motion, the Petitioner has 
submitted a new reference letter fro an architect and engineer, who worked with him 
on design projects including the~----~ marina in2006. I I asserts that the Petitioner's 
"master's degree research into advanced port planning techniques ... have helped set processes and 
standards in port planning internationally." He also references the Petitioner's work in the 
development ofthe~---~Future Study which he claims "has set the future ofl I sea 
based trade infrastructure for the next 100 years," and his development of "theoretical approaches and 
3 
models to the assessment of all kinds of ports and related infrastructure" and "cutting-edge techniques 
in broader infrastructure planning and design." This demonstrates that the Petitioner worked on high 
profile infrastructure planning projects, but the letter does demonstrate specifically what his original 
contributions are and how they amount to contributions of major significance. As stated in our 
previous decision, reference letters that do not provide specifics regarding the Petitioner's 
contributions and their impact on others in the field are insufficient to establish eligibility under this 
criterion. 
In addition, the Petitioner resubmits copies of additional reference letters. The Petitioner does not, 
however, specifically argue that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. 
Disagreeing with our conclusions without establishing that we erred as a matter of law or pointing to 
policy that contradicts our analysis of the evidence is not a ground to reconsider our decision. 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). This documentation has already been submitted, reviewed, and 
considered; accordingly, we will not address these letters in this proceeding. 
Further, on motion the Petitioner argues for the first time that he meets this criterion based on 
consulting work on additional projects, including thel I Container Terminal SaleJ I I !Independent Commercial ReviewJ I Shipping and Capacity Study, and 
the I !Terminals Sale, and submits several articles about those projects. We note that 
the evidence relating to those projects postdates the filing of the petition in this matter. As it appears 
that the Petitioner's work on those additional projects began in 2018 and 2019, after he filed his 
petition in November 2017, the evidence does not demonstrate that his claimed contributions to the 
field occurred prior to or at the time of his initial filing. Again, the Petitioner must establish that all 
eligibility requirements for the immigration benefit have been satisfied from the time of filing and 
continuing through adjudication. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 
45, 49 (Reg'l 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, 17 5 (Comm'r 1998). 
We will therefore not consider this new evidence on motion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the 
articles do not mention or otherwise refer to the Petitioner, and the record does not otherwise show 
specific contributions related to those projects attributable to the Petitioner that are of major 
significance in the field. 
Finally, on motion, the Petitioner provides "extraordinary ability background information" on the role 
of ports, the need to modernize U.S. Seaports, and the impact of port infrastructure on economic 
growth, including articles from the Journal of Shipping and Trade, and the websites www.issues.org, 
wwww.aapa-ports.org. www.oecd.org., and www.epa.gov. He also submits additional articles relating 
to various projects in which he had involvement includin the Port Future Study, the port 
planning stud~ for the Port Authority o ~----.------,.------'(I b, consulting to the Port 
oflwithl I Ports Corporation ~--~ The Petitioner does not explain, however, 
how those articles establish original contributions of major significance. The articles do not mention 
or otherwise refer to the Petitioner, and the record does not otherwise document specific contributions 
that are of major significance in the field that arose from his work. 
4 
For the reasons discussed above, the new documentation submitted on motion does not overcome our 
original decision, finding that the Petitioner did not satisfy at least three of the evidentiary criteria. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The assertions made by the Petitioner on motion do not establish that our previous decision was 
grounded in an incorrect application of law or policy. In addition, the new evidence submitted on 
motion does not overcome the grounds underlying our previous decision or demonstrate his eligibility 
for this classification. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is dismissed. 
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is dismissed. 
5