This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed both the motion to reconsider and the motion to reopen. The petitioner failed to establish any additional evidentiary criteria beyond the two previously granted (leading/critical role and high salary), falling short of the required three.
1 more criterion would trigger a full merits review.
The petitioner, a strategic port planner with over 25 years of experience, sought EB-1A classification but was found to meet only two of the required three evidentiary criteria (leading/critical role and high salary). On combined motions to reopen and reconsider, he argued he also met membership, original contributions, and scholarly articles criteria. The AAO dismissed both motions, finding that new evidence of a board directorship and consulting project work postdated the November 2017 filing date and thus could not be considered. Reference letters supporting original contributions were found too vague to demonstrate major significance in the field. The scholarly articles criterion was improperly raised for the first time on motion after having been abandoned on appeal.
What worked: The petitioner successfully established two criteria — holding a leading or critical role (criterion viii) and receiving a high salary (criterion ix) — which were accepted on prior appeal and remained undisturbed.
What failed: New membership evidence (board directorship) postdated the filing date and could not cure the deficiency. Reference letters for original contributions lacked the specificity needed to show major significance in the field. New project evidence also postdated filing. The scholarly articles claim was raised too late, having been abandoned on appeal.
Takeaway: Petitioners must ensure all supporting evidence clearly predates the filing date and that reference letters articulate specific, concrete contributions with measurable impact on the field — vague assertions of excellence are insufficient. New claims of eligibility must be raised at the earliest procedural stage, as they will be rejected if first advanced in a post-appellate motion.
Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- The petitioner successfully established two criteria — holding a leading or critical role (criterion viii) and receiving a high salary (criterion ix) — which were accepted on prior appeal and remained undisturbed.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- New membership evidence (board directorship) postdated the filing date and could not cure the deficiency
- Reference letters for original contributions lacked the specificity needed to show major significance in the field
- New project evidence also postdated filing
- The scholarly articles claim was raised too late, having been abandoned on appeal.
Criterion-by-criterion breakdown
Membership in associations requiring outstanding achievement
Not metPIANC and ALC memberships did not require outstanding achievements as judged by recognized experts. New evidence of board directorship postdated the filing date and could not be considered.
Published material about the person
Not metPetitioner did not claim this criterion on motion; previously considered and not satisfied.
Original contributions of major significance
Not metReference letters lacked specifics about contributions and their major significance. New project evidence postdated filing. Articles submitted did not mention the petitioner.
Authorship of scholarly articles
Not metNot previously claimed on appeal; treated as improperly raised on motion. Master's thesis archived but 'not available from this repository' does not establish publication in major media.
Leading or critical role for distinguished organizations
MetPreviously granted on appeal; not disputed on motion.
High salary or other significantly high remuneration
MetPreviously granted on appeal; not disputed on motion.
Completed
I-140 filed
Strategic port planner with over 25 years of experience in maritime and civil infrastructure development
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2020-06-02
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed both the motion to reconsider and the motion to reopen. The petitioner failed to establish any additional evidentiary criteria beyond the two previously granted (leading/critical role and high salary), falling short of the required three.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.