Entrepreneur

The Director denied the petition because the record did not establish the petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal and subsequent motions to reconsider because the petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the Director's decision and did not contest the correctness of the AAO's prior dismissal decision.

The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider because the petitioner did not argue that the prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, nor did they cite relevant legal provisions. The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner submitted only duplicate copies of previously submitted documents, which do not constitute new facts or evidence as required.

The petitioner sought a national interest waiver for an unspecified endeavor. The record does not detail the specific research or work focus as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds regarding the filing of briefs and evidence.

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed. The initial appeal was dismissed as untimely, filed 40 days after the Director's decision. The petitioner's argument that submission to USPS was equivalent to submission to USCIS was rejected, as USCIS considers a request received only when physically or electronically received at a designated filing location. No tracking data was provided to prove timely mailing or receipt. For the motion to reopen, the petitioner did not establish eligibility. For the motion to reconsider, the petitioner failed to show the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.