remanded EB-1A Case: Geotechnical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: MAR. 11, 2025 In Re: 35547186 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a geotechnical engineer, seeks classification as an individual of extraordinary ability 
in the sciences. Immigration and Nationality 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 record did not 
establish that the Petitioner meets the classification's initial evidentiary requirements . The Petitioner 
filed a motion to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), which the Director dismissed. The matter 
is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter of Chawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent 
with the following analysis. 
A motion to reconsider must state the reasons for reconsideration to establish that our prior decision 
was based on an incorrect application oflaw 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). 
Remanding a matter is appropriate when the Director does not fully explain the reasons for the 
dismissal so that the affected party has a fair opportunity to contest the decision and we have an 
opportunity to conduct a meaningful appellate review. See Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786, 787-88 
(BIA 1994) (stating that motion dismissals that do not identify or fully explain their reasoning should 
be remanded in order to allow the affected party a meaningful opportunity to challenge their 
determinations on appeal). In this instance, the motion dismissal notice did not provide an adequate 
explanation of its conclusions. We will therefore remand this matter. 
In support of his motion to reconsider, the Petitioner submitted a letter from his attorney. The Director, 
citing to Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 n.2 (BIA 1988) and Matter ofRamirez-Sanchez, 
17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 (BIA 1980), noted the assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence, and 
concluded that the Petitioner did not state sufficient reasons for reconsideration because he only 
"provided essentially the same evidence and generally allege[d] error in the prior decision." He then 
dismissed the motion without further analysis. 
As noted above, a motion to reconsider must "state the reasons for reconsideration ... to establish that 
the decision was based on an incorrect application of law or [USCIS] policy ...". 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103 .5( a )(3 ). Here, the attorney letter filed in support of the motion states reasons for reconsideration 
by specifying factual and legal issues that were allegedly decided in error or overlooked in the 
underlying denial. See In re O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 57-58 (BIA 2006) (describing the requirements 
of motions to reconsider). For example, the letter contends that the Director should not have solely 
relied on the Petitioner's citation counts when adjudicating his contributions to his field, but should 
have considered additional evidence submitted in support of this criterion. See 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(v). See generally 6 USCIS Policy Manual F.2(B)(l), https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual (stating that examples of relevant evidence for this criterion "include, but are not limited to" 
items such as documentation of citation levels). 
Because the Petitioner proposed specific reasons for reconsidering the underlying petition denial, as 
required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3), the Director should evaluate these reasons in writing in the motion 
decision. See Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. at 787-88. Here, the dismissal notice only states that the 
Petitioner "did not provide sufficient reasons for reconsideration," without specifying what the 
provided reasons were or why they were insufficient. This does not provide an explanation of the 
Director's reasoning which allows the Petitioner to contest the decision on appeal or allows us to 
conduct a meaningful appellate review. Id. We will therefore remand this matter for the issuance of 
a new decision. The Director may request any additional evidence considered pertinent to the new 
determination and any other issues. We express no opinion regarding the ultimate resolution of this 
case on remand. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
2