Date of Decision: November 13, 2024
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Professor of Law and Economics
Field: Law, Economics, and Academic Research
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to reopen and reconsider a previously denied EB-1 petition. Upon review, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed both motions, finding that the petitioner failed to satisfy regulatory requirements for motions to reopen or reconsider.
Motions Reviewed:
- Motion to Reopen:
- The petitioner submitted the first page of the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, arguing it provided “new facts” relevant to the petition.
- The AAO determined that this was a legal precedent, not a fact, and thus did not satisfy the requirements for reopening.
- Motion to Reconsider:
- The petitioner argued that the AAO misapplied law and policy and that the Loper decision invalidated the AAO’s interpretation of ambiguous regulations.
- The AAO concluded that Loper affected federal courts, not agencies like USCIS, and therefore had no bearing on the petitioner’s case.
Key Points from the Decision
Motion to Reopen:
- The petitioner did not submit new, probative facts supported by documentary evidence as required under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2).
Motion to Reconsider:
- The petitioner’s reliance on Loper was found to be misplaced, as it pertains to judicial review rather than agency decision-making.
- Alleged factual errors (e.g., description of the petitioner as a “former professor”) were deemed immaterial to the AAO’s decision.
Requests for Employment Authorization and De Novo Review:
- The AAO noted it lacks authority to issue Employment Authorization Documents (EADs).
- The AAO declined to conduct a de novo review, citing the petitioner’s failure to identify specific errors in the previous decision.
Final Merits Determination:
- The petitioner did not meet the evidentiary threshold to establish extraordinary ability or eligibility for the requested classification.
Supporting Documentation
Legal Precedent: First page of the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
Other Evidence: Claims of error in previous decisions, unsupported by new or relevant documentary evidence.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet the regulatory requirements for reopening or reconsideration under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. No new facts or legal errors were demonstrated to warrant further action.
