All Cases

The Petitioner failed to provide evidence that his two books were published in professional or major trade publications or other major media, thus not meeting the scholarly articles criterion. His Rabbinical Certificate was not accepted as a nationally or internationally recognized prize or award for excellence. The AAO did not evaluate the remaining two claimed criteria (original contributions and leading/critical role) as the Petitioner could not numerically meet the required three criteria. The record, in aggregate, did not support a finding of sustained national or international acclaim or that the Petitioner is among the small percentage at the very top of the field.

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet the initial evidentiary requirement of either a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten regulatory criteria. Specifically, the AAO found she only met the 'scholarly articles' criterion, failing to demonstrate eligibility for 'lesser prizes or awards,' 'membership,' 'judging,' 'original contributions of major significance,' or 'high salary.' The decision emphasized that her work, while showing potential, did not establish *already realized* major significance or sustained national/international acclaim, which is required for individuals at the very top of their field.

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 AAO dismissed the motions because the Petitioner failed to provide evidence of intent to work as a postsecondary teacher at the time of filing, such as letters from prospective employers, prearranged commitments, or a detailed statement of plans. Evidence submitted largely related to events after the January 2013 filing date, which is not considered. The Petitioner's SJD degree and part-time research assistant experience were deemed insufficient to establish intent or experience as a postsecondary teacher. Prior petitions claiming intent to work as a self-employed lawyer were also noted.

The motions were dismissed as untimely filed. The latest motion decision was issued on March 18, 2024, and the Petitioner filed the current motions on May 20, 2024, which was 63 days later, exceeding the 33-day filing deadline. Although the delay was attributed to a dishonored check, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable and beyond his control as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1). For the motion to reconsider, there is no regulatory authority to extend the 33-day time limit.

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to overcome the Director's analysis. Specifically, the petitioner abandoned claims for awards and high salary. She did not provide evidence that her memberships required outstanding achievements judged by nationally or internationally recognized experts. Furthermore, she failed to demonstrate that publications about her work were of the regulatory required types, or that her original contributions significantly impacted the field through incremental recognition. Finally, she did not adequately show she performed in a leading or critical role of significance to the entity.