Special Needs Specialist

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. Specifically, the Petitioner did not contest the Director's determination regarding eligibility as an advanced degree professional, thus waiving that issue. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not claim eligibility for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability before the Director, and therefore, these claims could not be considered for the first time on appeal. The Petitioner did not provide support for the assertion that eligibility for exceptional ability was previously claimed.

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the previous AAO decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time it was issued. The Petitioner attempted to introduce new evidence and re-adjudicate the initial petition and prior decisions, which is not the proper basis for a motion to reconsider.

The Director denied the petition because the Petitioner failed to establish that a waiver of the job offer and labor certification would be in the national interest. The AAO dismissed the appeal and subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider because the Petitioner did not include a statement identifying erroneous conclusions with Form I-290B and mailed the appeal brief to the USCIS Phoenix Lockbox instead of directly to the AAO, causing a delay in its incorporation into the record.

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) dismissed the appeal and subsequent motions because the Petitioner misfiled the appeal brief to an incorrect address, resulting in its absence from the record during adjudication. The AAO found no error in its prior summary dismissal, which was mandated by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) due to the lack of a brief or basis statement.