Materials science research
The AAO dismissed the combined motions to reopen and reconsider, leaving the denial of the petition in place.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A researcher sought to reopen and reconsider the AAO's latest decision in her EB-1A case, which had followed a SCOPS denial, a dismissed appeal and three dismissed motions. The earlier AAO appeal decision had accepted that she met two criteria but not the others she claimed, and it reserved the question of sustained acclaim. On the reopening request, the AAO declined to consider an updated citation profile showing citations made years after the petition was filed, and found no new facts showing error in its prior motion decision. The reconsideration request merely reargued earlier points, and both motions were dismissed.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| (iv) Judging the work of others | Met | those pertaining to her participation as a judge of the work of others in her |
| (vi) Authorship of scholarly articles | Met | authorship of scholarly articles in her field |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The prior AAO decision had agreed with SCOPS that the petitioner met two of the ten criteria, judging and scholarly articles, but not the four additional criteria she claimed on appeal, so the initial evidence requirement was not met.
- As the AAO had explained in its prior motion decision, evidence of a professional society membership obtained after filing could not be considered; on this motion, an updated citation profile reflecting citations made years after filing was likewise not considered because eligibility must be established as of the filing date.
- Her claim that she did not receive notice of the appeal's transfer to the AAO was treated as, at most, a harmless error that she did not show affected the decision.
- On reconsideration, her contentions merely reargued facts and issues the AAO had already considered, so the motion did not show that the latest decision rested on an incorrect application of law or policy.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976)
- Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)
- Matter of Furtado, 28 I&N Dec. 794, 801-02 (BIA 2024)
- Matter of Soriano, 19 I&N Dec. 764, 766 (BIA 1988)
- Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971)
- Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330, 336 n.5 (BIA 2021)
- Matter of O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56, 58 (BIA 2006)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary