Musician

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish meeting three out of ten EB-1A criteria. While the Petitioner met the 'exhibitions' criterion, evidence for 'awards' lacked proof of national/international recognition, 'memberships' did not require outstanding achievement, 'published material' lacked required elements (title, date, author) and context for major media, 'scholarly articles' lacked authorship proof, 'leading role' letters lacked specific details of critical contributions, and 'commercial success' evidence (PayPal, Hotmart, MyEduzz sales, social media views) lacked comparative context or was not directly from music sales, or was dated after the filing. The 'original contributions' criterion was not addressed as it would not change the outcome.

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. While the Director found three criteria met (published material, scholarly articles, and display of work), the awards presented were not established as nationally or internationally recognized, and scholarships were deemed academic training rather than qualifying awards. The Petitioner's appeal brief also failed to adequately address the specific shortcomings identified in the Director's final merits determination, leading to those issues being considered waived.

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.