Date of Decision: September 27, 2024
Service Center: Nebraska Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1 Extraordinary Ability
Petitioner Information
Profession: Vocational Agricultural Teacher
Field: Agricultural Education and Instruction
Nationality: Not specified in the document
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Dismissed
Evidentiary Criteria Analysis
The petitioner sought to meet at least three of the ten regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) but failed to satisfy the evidentiary threshold. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the petitioner’s motion to reopen and reconsider due to untimely filing.
Criteria Evaluated:
- Lesser Nationally or Internationally Recognized Prizes or Awards:
- The petitioner claimed recognition through teaching awards but did not demonstrate their national or international significance.
- Original Contributions of Major Significance:
- Evidence of curriculum development and innovative teaching methods was submitted but lacked corroboration of field-wide impact or adoption.
- Published Material About the Petitioner:
- Articles and publications provided by the petitioner did not meet the standard for major trade or professional publications, nor did they focus on the petitioner’s work.
Key Points from the Decision
Untimely Filing:
- The petitioner’s motion to reopen and reconsider was filed 63 days after the AAO’s adverse decision, exceeding the 33-day filing period. While the delay was attributed to issues with bank dishonored fee payments, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable and beyond their control.
Director’s Findings Affirmed:
- The AAO upheld the Director’s findings, noting that the petitioner did not meet at least three of the regulatory criteria for EB-1 classification.
Motion Dismissal:
- Both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider were dismissed, as the untimely filing could not be excused.
Supporting Documentation
Award Evidence: Evidence of teaching awards, not demonstrated as nationally or internationally significant.
Contribution Evidence: Documentation of curriculum development and innovative teaching methods, lacking proof of major significance.
Published Material Evidence: Articles and publications, insufficient for meeting regulatory requirements.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was dismissed.
Reasoning:
The petitioner failed to meet the regulatory criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3). Additionally, the motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed due to untimely filing, and the petitioner did not demonstrate eligibility for the requested benefit.
