Not Stated

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 and reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Although the Petitioner provided a copy of a supplemental brief, it was incorrectly mailed to Arizona instead of the AAO, and the Petitioner offered no new facts to overcome the grounds for the original dismissal.

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed as untimely filed. The Petitioner attempted to file motions on November 4, 2024, which was 38 days after the latest adverse decision on September 27, 2024, exceeding the 33-day limit. The delay was attributed to the Petitioner improperly completing Form I-290B by selecting both an appeal and a motion. The Petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the delay was reasonable and beyond their control for the motion to reopen, and no authority exists to extend the time limit for a motion to reconsider. Additionally, the Petitioner did not establish new facts or show legal/policy error in the prior decision.

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.