Project Manager

The second motion to reopen was dismissed because the new evidence, a 2017 letter from a Russian gold mining company, did not satisfy the criterion for nationally or internationally recognized awards (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)) as it was not an award and was not established to be for excellence in the petitioner's field of ecology. It also did not satisfy the criterion for membership in associations requiring outstanding achievements (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)) as it did not indicate membership. Since the petitioner failed to meet these two criteria, he could not meet the minimum three evidentiary criteria required for a final merits determination.

The Petitioner failed to meet any of the evaluated EB-1A criteria. The awards were internal employer recognitions, memberships did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts, and there was no evidence of published material about the Petitioner or proof that his original contributions were of major significance in the field.

The Petitioner met only 2 of the 10 criteria (judging and display), failing to meet the minimum requirement of 3. Specifically, published materials in The Himalayan Times and World of Women were not shown to be major media or primarily about the Petitioner's work. Evidence for high remuneration was insufficient due to a lack of tax records and the use of non-synchronous salary comparison data (2023 data compared to 2013-2020 earnings).

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to present new facts or evidence to overcome the grounds for denial, which stated she did not establish a major internationally recognized award or meet three regulatory criteria. The Petitioner's arguments did not demonstrate legal or factual error in the prior appellate decision, nor did the resubmitted evidence satisfy any regulatory criteria as of the filing date.