Former Professor

The motion to reopen was dismissed because it failed to state new facts supported by documentary evidence, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The motion to reconsider was dismissed because it did not establish that the AAO's latest decision misapplied law or policy. Specifically, the Petitioner's reliance on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo was deemed misplaced, as that ruling applies to federal courts' deference to agency interpretations of statutes, not to agencies' interpretations of their own regulations, which remain subject to Auer deference. Furthermore, alleged factual errors were found to be immaterial to the decision's analysis.

The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish new facts or demonstrate an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the Petitioner failed to meet the initial evidence requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), and the awards mentioned (such as one from 2005) lacked evidence of national or international acclaim. The Petitioner's arguments were largely repetitions of previously dismissed claims from twelve prior motions.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner did not establish that his awards were nationally recognized, his memberships required outstanding achievements, or that his published material and original contributions were of major significance in the field.

The petitioner failed to provide clear evidence of intent to continue work in the claimed area of expertise (postsecondary teaching) as required by 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(5). The record contained no history of teaching experience, and the evidence submitted (ABA roles, UN congress organization) pertained to legal practice rather than education. Consequently, the AAO did not reach a final merits determination on the specific EB-1A criteria.