Visa Petition Case

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 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.