Date of Decision: January 30, 2025
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Not specified in the decision
Field: Not specified in the decision
Nationality: Not specified
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Motion Outcome: Motion to reopen and reconsider dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
Criteria Claimed
- Lesser Awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i))
- Membership in Associations (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii))
- Original Contributions of Major Significance (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v))
- Leading or Critical Role (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(viii))
Motion to Reopen Findings
- Awards: Submitted Wikipedia pages on Kazakh security institutions, but these did not demonstrate that claimed awards reflected national or international recognition.
- Membership: Evidence included website pages, an Instagram page, and a letter of recommendation, but none established that membership required outstanding achievements judged by experts. Deficiencies in certified translations rendered several documents without evidentiary weight.
- Original Contributions: Petitioner claimed methodology advanced health of organ transplant recipients. Evidence included articles and social media posts, but none mentioned the petitioner or his methodology. Foreign-language documents again lacked proper translations.
- Leadership: Submitted new documents but failed to show organizational distinction or explain their relevance. Translation deficiencies persisted.
Motion to Reconsider Findings
- High Standard Argument: Petitioner argued AAO applied an “unreasonably high bar.” AAO found the correct standard of proof was applied, noting that reference letters lacked adequate detail, not that a stricter standard was imposed.
- Awards Criterion Argument: Petitioner mischaracterized AAO’s prior reasoning. AAO clarified denial was due to lack of evidence of award recognition, not an improper standard.
- Other Criteria: Petitioner relied on new evidence rather than showing any legal or policy error in the prior decision.
Key Points from the Decision
- Translation Failures: Multiple documents lacked certified translations, violating 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(3), and were given no evidentiary weight.
- Unsubstantiated Claims: Submitted evidence did not connect the petitioner to claimed contributions or organizational distinction.
- No Error in Law or Policy: Petitioner failed to show that the AAO misapplied law or policy.
- Denial Sustained: Motions did not cure evidentiary deficiencies or demonstrate any error.
Final Merits Determination
AAO reaffirmed denial. The petitioner did not establish eligibility under three criteria, and the motions failed to demonstrate new evidence or identify legal errors that would alter the outcome.
Supporting Documentation
- Award Evidence: Wikipedia pages on Kazakh institutions (not qualifying).
- Membership Evidence: Association web pages, Instagram pages, and letters without proper translation (not qualifying).
- Contribution Evidence: Article and Facebook post that did not reference the petitioner (not qualifying).
- Leadership Evidence: Untranslated or insufficient documents not demonstrating organizational distinction.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to reopen and reconsider dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner failed to provide compliant evidence, many documents lacked certified translations, and no error of law or policy was identified.
