Date of Decision: March 5, 2018
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Former Professor
Field: Education
Nationality: [Not specified in the document]
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Met:
Awards:
The petitioner claimed to meet the awards criterion by submitting evidence of internationally recognized prizes for excellence. However, these documents were previously submitted and did not constitute new evidence under the required criteria for a motion to reopen.
Criteria Not Met:
Certified Translations:
The petitioner failed to include properly certified English translations for some of the submitted documents as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3).
New Facts:
The petitioner did not present new facts or documentary evidence that had not been previously submitted. The resubmitted documents did not meet the standards of “new facts” as required for a motion to reopen.
Key Points from the Decision
Awards and Prizes Won:
The petitioner argued that his internationally recognized prizes for excellence met the awards criterion at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). However, the evidence had been previously submitted and thus did not satisfy the requirements for a motion to reopen.
Published Materials About the Petitioner:
No new published materials were submitted as new evidence in the motion to reopen.
Original Contributions of Major Significance:
The petitioner did not provide new evidence of original contributions of major significance in the field of education.
Participation as a Judge:
No new evidence was submitted regarding participation as a judge in the field.
Membership in Associations:
There was no new evidence presented regarding membership in associations that could qualify under the relevant criteria.
Authorship of Scholarly Articles:
The petitioner did not provide new evidence of authorship of scholarly articles that had not been previously submitted.
Leading or Critical Role Performed:
There was no new evidence provided of leading or critical roles performed in the field of education.
Artistic Exhibitions or Showcases:
Not applicable to this case.
Evidence of High Salary or Remuneration:
No new evidence of high salary or remuneration was provided.
Commercial Successes in the Performing Arts:
Not applicable to this case.
Supporting Documentation
The petitioner submitted the diploma of merit and a letter of appreciation for his work over the past eight years. However, these documents had been previously submitted and therefore did not constitute new evidence as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
Conclusion
Final Determination:
The motion to reopen was denied.
Reasoning:
The petitioner did not submit new evidence that had not been previously provided in the original petition or subsequent motions. Additionally, the evidence presented did not meet the criteria for new facts under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
Next Steps:
The petitioner may consider gathering new, relevant evidence that meets the criteria for a motion to reopen or appeal, ensuring that all documents are properly certified and translated as required by the regulations. Alternatively, seeking legal advice for further options might be beneficial.
