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))
Motion to Reopen Findings
- Previously Submitted Evidence: Letter from Dr. [Name Redacted] was not new evidence, having been submitted earlier.
- Post-Filing Evidence: Several documents were dated after the filing date and therefore not admissible.
- Employment Evidence: Submitted documents regarding her employment with a production show were not relevant to awards, as the show itself was not a competition awarding prizes.
- Competition Photos: Photos confirmed participation but did not establish recognition of awards at a national or international level.
- Letters of Support: A letter from the president of an association mentioned competitions but did not provide detailed evidence that the awards were nationally or internationally recognized.
Motion to Reconsider Findings
- Petitioner argued that the AAO misapplied the law and set an “unreasonably high bar.”
- AAO found no error in law or policy, noting that the deficiencies were due to lack of evidence, not misapplication of standards.
- Non-precedent AAO decisions cited by the petitioner were not binding on USCIS officers.
- Petitioner’s arguments amounted to disagreement with conclusions rather than evidence of legal error.
Key Points from the Decision
- No New Qualifying Evidence: Motion to reopen failed to establish new facts with documentary evidence that could change the outcome.
- Failure to Show Legal Error: Motion to reconsider did not identify any incorrect application of law or policy.
- Award Recognition Deficiency: Evidence of awards lacked proof of national or international recognition.
- Non-Precedent Cases Not Binding: Cited cases could not be relied upon as controlling authority.
Final Merits Determination
AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider. Petitioner did not establish eligibility under the awards criterion and failed to show error in law or policy.
Supporting Documentation
- Award Evidence: Letters and photos from competitions (insufficient to show recognition).
- Employment Evidence: Documentation of participation in a performance show (not qualifying).
- Letters of Support: Conclusory statements lacking detail or corroboration.
Conclusion
Final Determination: Motion to reopen dismissed; motion to reconsider dismissed.
Reasoning: Petitioner failed to provide new qualifying evidence for reopening and did not show any legal or policy error for reconsideration.
Download The Full Petition Review Here
