Visa Petition Case

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 appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to specifically identify which regulatory criteria she claimed to meet and how each submitted document related to those criteria, both in the initial filing and in response to the RFE. USCIS stated it is not their responsibility to infer or second-guess the intended criteria, and the burden of proof rests with the Petitioner.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner's brief only addressed the original petition denial and her eligibility, rather than challenging the Director's most recent decision to dismiss her combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO found that the Petitioner's failure to address why the Director's motion dismissal contained any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact was a sufficient basis for summary dismissal, and by not contesting the motion decision, she abandoned those claims.

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.