Former Professor

The Petitioner failed to provide evidence that his two books were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media, thus not meeting the scholarly articles criterion. His Rabbinical Certificate was not accepted as a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. The AAO did not evaluate the remaining two claimed criteria (original contributions and leading/critical role) as the Petitioner could not numerically meet the required three criteria. The record, in aggregate, did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide new facts or evidence that would establish an error in the prior decision to dismiss the appeal and combined motion. The Petitioner asserted eligibility for a lesser national or international prize, published material, contributions of major significance, and a leading or critical role, but these claims were not supported by new facts relevant to reopening the prior decision, thus the underlying petition remains denied.

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to overcome the Director's analysis. Specifically, the petitioner abandoned claims for awards and high salary. She did not provide evidence that her memberships required outstanding achievements judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts. Furthermore, she failed to demonstrate that publications about her work were of the regulatory required types, or that her original contributions significantly impacted the field through incremental recognition. Finally, she did not adequately show she performed in a leading or critical role of significance to the entity.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because it failed to state new facts supported by documentary evidence, as the evidence provided was already part of the record. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because it did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3) and did not demonstrate how STEM policy guidance applied to his role as a professor of law and economics.