Date of Decision: January 2, 2025
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Entrepreneur
Field: Information and Communication Technology
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Summarily dismissed
Motion Outcome: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met
- None
Criteria Not Met
- Regulatory Criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3): The Director determined that the petitioner did not meet the threshold requirement of showing a major internationally recognized award or at least three of the ten criteria.
- Appeal Brief Deficiency: The petitioner submitted a brief on appeal, but it failed to contest or address the Director’s findings, and it did not identify any factual or legal errors as required.
- Motion to Reopen: While new evidence was submitted, it was unrelated to the reason for dismissal and therefore not sufficient to justify reopening.
- Motion to Reconsider: The petitioner claimed the AAO failed to conduct a de novo review and disregarded documentation. The AAO clarified that de novo review was not required when the regulation mandated summary dismissal, and no legal or policy error was demonstrated.
Key Points from the Decision
- Failure to Contest the Director’s Findings: The petitioner did not challenge or identify errors in the Director’s denial, leading to summary dismissal of the appeal.
- Improper Grounds for Reconsideration: Arguments raised in the motion did not establish that the AAO’s decision was legally or procedurally incorrect.
- Insufficient New Evidence: Evidence presented on motion was unrelated to the grounds of summary dismissal and could not support reopening.
- Scope of Motion Limited: The AAO emphasized that a motion cannot be used to introduce new claims about the underlying petition’s denial unless the prior decision itself is shown to be in error.
Final Merits Determination
The AAO concluded that the petitioner did not establish proper cause for reopening or reconsideration. As a result, both motions were dismissed, and the denial remained in place.
Supporting Documentation
- Appeal Brief: Submitted but failed to challenge the Director’s findings.
- New Evidence: Provided on motion but unrelated to the basis of the prior dismissal.
- Legal Assertions: Claimed errors in review process but not substantiated under USCIS policy.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed.
Reasoning: The petitioner failed to establish factual or legal error in the prior decision and did not present new evidence sufficient to change the outcome.
