Integration Architect

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the 'original contributions of major significance' criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v)). The recommendation letters provided were deemed insufficient as they limited the significance of the Petitioner's contributions to his employers (e.g., 'annual saving of over a million USD' for one employer, 'saved millions of dollars to bank' for another) rather than demonstrating major significance to the overall field of energy efficiency. USCIS did not evaluate the other claimed criteria (leading or critical role, high salary) because the Petitioner could not fulfill the initial requirement of meeting three criteria.

The motion to reopen was dismissed due to a lack of new facts or documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the AAO found its reliance on Krasniqi v. Dibbins for merit-based awards was correct, the petitioner's awards were for participation, not excellence. The petitioner also failed to show error in the analysis of the leading or critical role criterion, or the high salary criterion, as no comparative evidence was provided to show the salary was high in relation to others in the field.

The combined motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not provide new facts or establish that the previous dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the Petitioner sent his appeal brief to the wrong location, violating 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(2) and Form I-290B instructions. The Petitioner's resubmission of previously provided information did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen.