dismissed O-1B Case: Custom Automotive Fabrication

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF N-H-R-
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: JUNE 14,2018 
MOTION ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE DECISION 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner, a custom hot rod company, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary in the United 
States as a fabricator and painter. To do so, the Petitioner aims to classify him as an 0-1 nonimmigrant, 
a visa classification available to foreign nationals who can· demonstrate their extraordinary ability 
through sustained national or international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in 
the field through extensive documentation. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 10l(a)(15)(0)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 110l(a)(15)(0)(i). 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner had not 
satisfied the evidentiary requirements applicable to individuals of extraordinary ability in the arts. 
We dismissed the Petitioner's subsequent appeal on the same basis. 1 The matter is now before us on 
a motion to reconsider. Upon review, we will deny the motion. 
I. LAW 
As relevant here, section 101(a)(15)(0)(i) of the Act establishes 0-1 classification for an individual who 
has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics which has been 
demonstrated by sustained national or international acclaim, whose achievements have been recognized 
in the field through extensive documentation, and who seeks to enter the United States to continue work 
in the area of extraordinary ability. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations define 
"extraordinary ability in the field of arts" as "distinction," and "distinction" as "a high level of 
achievement in the field of arts evidenced by a degree of skill and recognition substantially above that 
ordinarily encountered to the extent that a person described as prominent is renowned, leading, or well­
known in the tield of arts'' 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(ii). 
Next, DHS regulations set forth alternative initial evidentiary criteria for establishing a beneficiary's 
sustained acclaim and the recognition of achievements. A petitioner may submit evidence either of 
nomination for or receipt of "significant national or international awards or prizes" such as "an 
Academy Award, an Emmy, a Grammy, or a Director's Guild Award," or at least three of six listed 
categories of documents. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). If the petitioner demonstrates that the 
1 See Matter of N-H-R-, ID# 709390 (AAO Nov. 30, 2017) 
Matter of N-H-R-
listed criteria do not readily apply to the beneficiary's occupation, it may submit comparable evidence 
to establish eligibility. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(iv)(C). When a petitioner provides the requisite initial 
evidence, we then determine whether the totality of the record and the quality of the evidence shows 
extraordinary ability in the arts. See section 101(a)(15)(o)(i) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(ii), (iv). 
In addition, a motion to reconsider is based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The 
requirements of a motion to reconsider are located at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). We may grant a motion 
that satisfies these requirements and demonstrates eligibility for the requested immigration benefit. 
II. BACKGROUND 
The Director determined that the Petitioner did not satisfy any of the criteria at 8 C.F.R 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). On appeal, the Petitioner contested the Director's findings regarding the 
criteria for critical reviews or other published materials under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(2), 
commercial or critically acclaimed success under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(4), significant 
recognition under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(5), and high salary under 8 . C.F.R. 
§ 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(B)(6), and it also contended that it submitted comparable evidence of the 
Beneficiary's eligibility under 8 C.F.R § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(C). In our decision dismissing the appeal, 
we discussed the submitted evidence and found that the Petitioner had not met the requirements of 
the claimed criteria or the comparable evidence provision. We also found the Petitioner had not 
sufficiently clarified or documented the dates of intended employment. 
Ill. ANALYSIS 
As noted above, a motion to reconsider is based ori an incorrect application law or policy. 8 C.F.R. 
§ 103.5(a)(3). A request to reanalyze documentation without showing how we incorrectly applied 
law or policy does not meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider. 
In its motion to reconsider, the Petitioner contends that it has provided sufficient evidence to meet 
three evidentiary criteria and that we "discounted" its evidcncc. 2 However, it has not demonstrated 
that we incorrectly applied the relevant law, nor has it identified documentation that we overlooked 
or misinterpreted. Regardless, we find no error in our previous determination. In our prior decision, 
we analyzed the evidence relating to the Petitioner's proposed work and found that the record did not 
adequately document that the Beneficiary satisfies, as required, the evidentiary criteria applicable to 
individuals of extraordinary ability in the arts, either a significant national or international award or at 
least three of six possible forms of documentation. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(iv)(A)-(B). 
For purposes of a motion to reconsider, the question is whether our decision was correct based on the 
record that existed at the time of adjudication. On motion, the Petitioner requests that the evidence 
"should be reconsidered and weighed" in its favor. However, it does not cite to any relevant law, 
2 .Thc Petitioner docs not address or contest our finding reg'arding the dates of intended employment. 
2 
Matter of N-H-R-
regulation, or precedent establishing that we based our previous findings on an incorrect application 
of the law, regulation, or USCIS policy, nor does the motion demonstrate that our latest decision was 
erroneous based on the evidence before us at the time of the decision. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
The motion to reconsider does not establish that our previous decision was incorrect. 
ORDER: The motion to reconsider is denied. 
Cite as Matter of N-H-R-, ID# 1298892 (AAO June 14, 2018) 
3