Others

The motion to reopen was dismissed because it did not state new facts material to the basis for which the second combined motion was dismissed, nor was it supported with new documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner did not establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time it was issued. The petitioner also failed to address the basis for the prior dismissal or their qualification for EB-2 classification.

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the regulatory requirements. For the motion to reopen, no new facts supported by documentary evidence were presented that were material to the issues raised on motion and not previously submitted. For the motion to reconsider, the Petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of that decision.

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the petitioner submitted no new facts or documentary evidence as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, providing only general assertions that evidence was not properly analyzed. The underlying petition was originally denied because the record did not establish the petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability.

The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the petitioner failed to provide new facts or documentary evidence relevant to the AAO's lack of jurisdiction over the motions, nor did they question the factual or legal correctness of the prior decision to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. The motion did not satisfy the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2) for new facts or 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3) for incorrect application of law or policy.