Visa Petition Case

The Director denied the petition for not establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver. The initial appeal was summarily dismissed because the Petitioner did not identify specific legal or factual errors and failed to submit a brief/additional evidence within 30 days. The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner incorrectly mailed the appeal brief to a lockbox instead of directly to the AAO. The motion to reconsider was dismissed as the Petitioner did not establish that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.

The document does not specify the petitioner's proposed endeavor, as the appeal and motions focused on the threshold eligibility for EB-2 classification rather than the merits of the work itself.

The motion to reopen and reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the initial appeal filing, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v) and Form I-290B instructions. Additionally, the Petitioner failed to send the follow-on brief directly to the AAO, instead mailing it to a lockbox address, which violated the Form I-290B instructions. The Petitioner did not establish eligibility as of the filing date or demonstrate that the previous decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.

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.