All Cases

The Petitioner failed to meet the required three criteria; specifically, the judging criterion was withdrawn because he judged internal employees rather than others in the same/allied field.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 satisfy any of the three claimed EB-1A criteria. The Letter of Recognition from the Mayor of a Kazakhstan city was not considered a nationally or internationally recognized award for excellence under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i). Because the Petitioner failed to meet the first criterion, the remaining claims for original contributions and leading roles were not fully adjudicated as they would not change the outcome.

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.

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed as untimely filed. The Petitioner attempted to file motions on November 4, 2024, which was 38 days after the latest adverse decision on September 27, 2024, exceeding the 33-day limit. The delay was attributed to the Petitioner improperly completing Form I-290B by selecting both an appeal and a motion. The Petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable and beyond their control for the motion to reopen, and no authority exists to extend the time limit for a motion to reconsider. Additionally, the Petitioner did not establish new facts or show legal/policy error in the prior decision.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria. Specifically, the 'awards' criterion was not met as the submitted 'certifications' and 'certificates of appreciation' were deemed local/regional, job performance-based, and not nationally or internationally recognized prizes for excellence. The 'judging' criterion was not met because the Petitioner's evaluations of subordinates and candidates were considered job duties in varying fields (military security compliance, linguistics), not judging the work of others in her asserted field of administrative services and facilities management.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to provide new facts or evidence that would establish an error in the prior decision to dismiss the appeal and combined motion. The Petitioner asserted eligibility for a lesser national or international prize, published material, contributions of major significance, and a leading or critical role, but these claims were not supported by new facts relevant to reopening the prior decision, thus the underlying petition remains denied.

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the AAO's prior decision to summarily dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and no new facts relevant to the summary dismissal were presented. The original appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner's brief did not identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact in the Director's decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v). The Petitioner did not contest these stated reasons for summary dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for the EB-1A classification. The AAO found that the Petitioner did not meet the requirement of a major, internationally recognized award. Regarding the ten regulatory criteria, the AAO agreed with the Director that the Petitioner only satisfied one criterion (published material). The Petitioner's claims for 'original contributions of major significance' were rejected because his patents and advancements in aquaculture in China were not considered original to the broader international field, with similar technologies existing prior to his involvement. His 'authorship of scholarly articles' criterion was also rejected as the articles (from 1998 and 2006) were in fields (materials science, computer graphics) unrelated to aquaculture, his stated field of endeavor for the U.S. petition. Therefore, the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum three criteria.