Geotechnical Engineer

The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner did not address the grounds of the most recent decision (January 2023) and failed to provide evidence that a brief was timely filed in 2018 to contest the summary dismissal. The Petitioner's arguments merely reiterated prior claims regarding the underlying merits rather than resolving the procedural failures of the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to offer a timely explanation or rebuttal to a properly issued NOIR. The AAO found that USCIS followed proper service regulations by mailing the notice to the last known address, and the Petitioner's claim of non-receipt did not overcome the presumption of regularity.

The AAO affirmed that the petitioner did not meet the 'original contributions of major significance' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)), finding that evidence of published work, citations, and expert testimonials did not sufficiently demonstrate widespread implementation or major impact beyond the petitioner's employers. The AAO also concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim, noting insufficient evidence for the notability of the conference where the petitioner judged and a lack of evidence showing widespread application or significant impact of the petitioner's research in mechanical engineering. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision.