Physiotherapist

The Director denied the petition because the Beneficiary failed to meet the O-1 criteria for extraordinary ability in athletics, specifically not providing evidence of a major award or meeting three of the eight evidentiary criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because the Petitioner's appeal submission did not identify specific erroneous conclusions of law or fact in the Director's decision, and the supplemental brief was incorrectly sent to the Phoenix Lockbox instead of the AAO. The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner did not present new facts or evidence, nor did they establish that the AAO's prior summary dismissal was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.

The motion to reopen was dismissed as untimely, filed 77 days after the appeal dismissal, exceeding the 33-day limit. The Petitioner's excuse for untimeliness, lack of notice to prior counsel, was rejected because the record lacked a properly executed Form G-28, making the Petitioner self-represented for the appeal and motion. Therefore, the delay was not considered reasonable or beyond the Petitioner's control. Furthermore, the motion to reopen did not state new facts relating to the AAO's summary dismissal of the appeal, instead focusing on the Director's initial findings, which was outside the scope of the motion. The motion to reconsider was also dismissed as untimely, as there is no authority to extend its 33-day time limit.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight O-1 evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the AAO found that published material about the alien was not met as the evidence only showed authorship or citations, not material *about* the alien. Original contributions of major significance were not established as citations were not shown to be unusually high or to represent major impact, and testimonial letters lacked specific detail on major influence. Critical employment roles were also not met as letters did not sufficiently elaborate on the significant importance of the Beneficiary's contributions to the organizations.

The motion was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to specify any factual or legal errors in the prior decision, instead restating previous arguments. The evidence provided did not satisfy the required three criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(3)(v)(B). Additionally, the claim for commercial success was not considered because it was raised for the first time on appeal.