Date of Decision: February 3, 2023
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
- Profession: Not specified
- Field: Not specified
- Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
- Initial Decision: Denied
- Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
None specified as met in the document.
Criteria Not Met:
- Criterion 1: Awards and prizes
- The petitioner did not adequately address the shortcomings noted in the previous decision regarding awards and prizes.
- Criterion 2: Membership in associations
- Previous decisions questioned the significance and role of the petitioner’s memberships.
- Criterion 3: Leading or critical role
- The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence supporting claims of a leading or critical role.
- Criterion 4: Contributions of major significance
- Evidence provided did not sufficiently demonstrate contributions of major significance.
- Criterion 5: Published material about the petitioner
- The petitioner did not address the prior decision’s concerns about the relevancy and impact of the published material.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not provide new facts or documentary evidence to counter the prior decision’s evaluation of awards and prizes.
- Key quotes or references:
- “The Petitioner’s opportunity to make the arguments relating to these past decisions was in the filing that immediately followed each of those decisions.”
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
- Summary of findings: The material presented did not adequately address the concerns noted in the previous dismissal.
- Key quotes or references:
- “He discusses the merits of his petition filing harkening back to the Director’s original January 2019 decision and our two subsequent decisions on his appeal and first motion.”
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Summary of findings: The evidence did not sufficiently establish the petitioner’s contributions as being of major significance.
- Key quotes or references:
- “He does not adequately address the dismissal basis within our most recent decision on the Petitioner’s fifth motion.”
Participation as a Judge:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner failed to provide substantial new evidence.
- Key quotes or references:
- “The Petitioner has not overcome our reasoning within his fifth motion dismissal through new evidence in this motion to reopen.”
Membership in Associations:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not effectively counter the prior decision’s analysis.
- Key quotes or references:
- “Multiple motion filings serve to thwart the strong public interest in bringing issues to a close.”
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not sufficiently address previous concerns.
- Key quotes or references:
- “General support that a motion must first overcome the most recent decision lies within the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)-(3).”
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
- Summary of findings: The petitioner did not provide convincing new evidence.
- Key quotes or references:
- “Any motion must first address and overcome the most recent adverse decision.”
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable as no relevant evidence was presented.
- Key quotes or references: N/A
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable as no relevant evidence was presented.
- Key quotes or references: N/A
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
- Summary of findings: Not applicable as no relevant evidence was presented.
- Key quotes or references: N/A
Supporting Documentation
- Summary: The document does not specify individual supporting documents but indicates that the petitioner has not provided sufficient new facts or evidence to warrant reopening or reconsideration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were both dismissed.
Reasoning:
- The petitioner did not address the specific reasons for the previous dismissal.
- The petitioner failed to provide new evidence or demonstrate that the decision was incorrect based on an application of the law or USCIS policy.
Next Steps:
- The petitioner may consider refiling a new petition as it could be a more effective method to achieve a favorable decision.
- Addressing the specific shortcomings noted in the most recent decision is critical if future motions are to be considered.
