Squash Pro

The appeal was dismissed because the Director initially denied the petition due to the Beneficiary's failure to meet the O-1 extraordinary ability criteria, specifically not demonstrating a major award or three of the eight evidentiary categories. Furthermore, a subsequent nonimmigrant petition for the same Beneficiary was approved, making the current appeal moot.

The appeal was dismissed primarily because the Petitioner did not satisfy the regulatory requirement for a written contract or a summary of an oral agreement under 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(ii)(B). The provided document was unsigned by the Beneficiary and undated, making it impossible to determine the actual terms and conditions of employment at the time of filing. Other grounds for denial, such as the lack of an itinerary and advisory opinion, were reserved as the contract issue was dispositive.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish the Beneficiary met the required three out of eight O-1 criteria. Specifically, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the claimed awards were nationally or internationally recognized for excellence, that memberships required outstanding achievements judged by experts, that published materials were from professional or major media and 'about' the Beneficiary, or that original contributions were scientific, scholarly, or business-related and of major significance to the field beyond individual athletes/teams.

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.