General Manager

The motion to reopen was dismissed because the Petitioner did not provide new facts to establish an error in dismissing the latest prior combined motion. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not acknowledge the latest prior decision in the proceeding and instead addressed the Director's basis for denying the underlying Form I-140.

The AAO dismissed the petitioner's motions to reopen and reconsider because it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, which had been previously rejected by the AAO. According to 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i)-(ii) and AAO Practice Manual, the AAO does not have jurisdiction over motions to reopen or reconsider its rejection of an appeal.

The motion to reopen was dismissed due to the Petitioner's failure to present new relevant facts supported by documentary evidence. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner reiterated identical arguments from the previous appeal without demonstrating that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time of the decision. The previous appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor (Dhanasar Prong 1).

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.