All Cases

The Petitioner did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. The record failed to establish a one-time major award or satisfaction of at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to state new facts, reasserting arguments already made on appeal. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner provided only conclusory assertions without specific evidence or legal precedent to show the prior decision was incorrect. The Petitioner did not satisfy the threshold of meeting three EB-1A criteria, rendering a final merits determination unnecessary.

The Petitioner failed to meet the membership criterion (8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii)) because the record did not establish that the associations required outstanding achievements of their members as judged by national or international experts. Since the Petitioner did not assert eligibility for criteria (iii) through (vii) or (ix) through (x), he could not reach the minimum of three criteria even if awards and leading roles were satisfied. Consequently, the record did not demonstrate the required sustained national or international acclaim for EB-1A classification.

The Petitioner failed to meet any of the discussed criteria: awards (lack of evidence for national/international recognition), memberships (APT membership does not require outstanding achievements judged by experts), and judging (failed to prove actual participation or that hiring duties constituted judging the work of others). No specific citation or publication counts were validated as meeting the standards. The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not satisfy the minimum of three criteria.

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet at least three EB-1A criteria; specifically, the published materials were not 'about' the petitioner, and the original contributions lacked evidence of major significance in the legal field. While the petitioner provided letters of support and salary data, the letters lacked specific examples of field-wide influence, and the salary data compared a law firm partner to general lawyers using non-contemporaneous metrics. No criteria were found to be satisfied upon de novo review.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner only met two of the ten required criteria (judging and exhibitions), failing to reach the minimum of three. Specifically, the awards were from his youth as a dancer rather than as a choreographer, the memberships did not require 'outstanding achievements' as judged by experts, and the training manual lacked evidence of 'major significance' beyond his own employer. Additionally, the salary comparison to 'choreographers' was insufficient for his 'Head Coach' role, and his role at the dance school was not proven to be leading or critical.

The Petitioner failed to meet the required three criteria for EB-1A classification. While leading role and high salary were met, the 'original contributions of major significance' criterion was not satisfied because the evidence (recommendation letters and articles) focused on the platform's success rather than the Petitioner's specific original impact on the field. Additionally, new claims for memberships and judging were rejected as they were raised for the first time on appeal.

The Petitioner failed to meet the required three criteria; specifically, the judging criterion was withdrawn because he judged internal employees rather than others in the same/allied field. The awards and memberships lacked evidence of national/international recognition or outstanding achievement requirements. The high salary claim was rejected due to a lack of proper comparative data for general managers in Turkey.

The Petitioner failed to meet any of the 10 EB-1A criteria upon de novo review. Specifically, memberships did not require outstanding achievements, published materials were promotional or lacked circulation data, and displays were commercial trade shows rather than artistic exhibitions. Additionally, the final merits review found that 7 million Google Street View hits and local client letters did not constitute sustained national acclaim.

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because there is no legal basis for accepting a late-filed motion to reconsider. The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the 41-day delay was reasonable or beyond her control, as the provided state documentation and support letters lacked specific details linking the car crash to the filing delay.