Visa Petition Case

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to present new facts or evidence to overcome the grounds for denial, which stated she did not establish a major internationally recognized award or meet three regulatory criteria. The Petitioner's arguments did not demonstrate legal or factual error in the prior appellate decision, nor did the resubmitted evidence satisfy any regulatory criteria as of the filing date.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate sustained national or international acclaim and that she is among the small percentage at the very top of her field, despite meeting three initial criteria (published material, judging, leading/critical role). Evidence of media coverage was limited to a local newspaper's 'City' section from 1996-2008, lacking national/international reach or post-2008 continuity. A single instance of judging local musicians in 2016 was not deemed indicative of extraordinary ability. Her leading roles in cultural organizations in I I from 1996-2008 also lacked documentation of sustained acclaim or comparable activities after 2008, failing to show a maintained level of acclaim.

The motion to reopen was dismissed due to a lack of new facts or documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the AAO found its reliance on Krasniqi v. Dibbins for merit-based awards was correct, the petitioner's awards were for participation, not excellence. The petitioner also failed to show error in the analysis of the leading or critical role criterion, or the high salary criterion, as no comparative evidence was provided to show the salary was high in relation to others in the field.