Martial Arts Instructor

The Petitioner did not meet the requirements for a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider. The record failed to establish a one-time major award or satisfaction of at least three of the ten EB-1A criteria.

The AAO dismissed the combined motions because the petitioner failed to provide new facts supported by documentary evidence related to the February 5, 2024 motion decision for the motion to reopen. For the motion to reconsider, the petitioner did not establish that the AAO was incorrect in its ultimate determination in that same decision. The petitioner's submissions were repetitive and did not address the procedural requirements for reopening or reconsidering the latest adverse decision.

The motion was dismissed because it did not provide new facts or evidence to overcome the most recent adverse decision (the fifth motion). Under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a), a motion must address the latest decision in the procedural history to warrant reopening.

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.