Others

The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for extraordinary ability by not meeting the initial evidentiary requirements, specifically lacking evidence of a one-time achievement or at least three of the ten alternative criteria. The AAO dismissed the subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider because the Petitioner did not present new facts or demonstrate that the prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, and a crucial supplemental brief was misdirected to the wrong service center.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to present 'new facts' supported by documentary evidence, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The Petitioner reasserted previously stated facts and resubmitted previously provided evidence, which does not constitute new facts. Additionally, new eligibility claims cannot be introduced for the first time in a motion to reopen following an adverse appeal decision. The Petitioner's claims regarding inability to obtain supporting documentation for memberships and additional assertions for contributions of major significance and leading role criteria were deemed insufficient or unsupported by evidence.

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.