Date of Decision: July 12, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Former Professor
Field: Law and Economics
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Motion to Reopen and Motion to Reconsider Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner has filed multiple motions over several years, but the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) determined that the most recent motion failed to meet the regulatory requirements for reopening or reconsideration.
Key Issues Highlighted in the Decision:
- Failure to Provide New Facts:
- The petitioner claimed the AAO misstated the number of motions filed, but this assertion was unsupported by documentary evidence.
- The petitioner’s assertion did not address material eligibility requirements.
- Failure to Demonstrate Errors in Law or Policy:
- The petitioner requested reevaluation under updated policy guidance for STEM fields, asserting relevance based on prior civil engineering coursework.
- The AAO found no direct connection between this STEM-related guidance and the petitioner’s qualifications as a professor of law and economics.
- Procedural Deficiencies:
- The petitioner submitted a brief and a copy of the most recent AAO decision, which were already part of the record and did not constitute new evidence.
Key Points from the Decision
Inadequate Evidence for Reopening:
The petitioner’s motion to reopen failed to present new facts that could change the outcome of the prior decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
Failure to Establish Errors for Reconsideration:
The motion to reconsider did not identify any specific errors in the AAO’s most recent decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).
Irrelevant STEM Policy Guidance:
The petitioner referenced STEM-related policy guidance issued in September 2023. However, this guidance was unrelated to the petitioner’s field of law and economics, and the AAO rejected the request for a de novo review of the record.
Supporting Documentation
Motions Submitted: Copies of prior AAO decisions, previously part of the record.
Policy Guidance: Referenced but deemed inapplicable to the petitioner’s field.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to present new facts or demonstrate errors in the AAO’s prior decision. Additionally, the petition did not satisfy the regulatory requirements for EB-1 extraordinary ability classification.
