Lawyer

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.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to specifically identify which regulatory criteria she claimed to meet and how each submitted document related to those criteria, both in the initial filing and in response to the RFE. USCIS stated it is not their responsibility to infer or second-guess the intended criteria, and the burden of proof rests with the Petitioner.

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 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.