Senior Tennis Instructor

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 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 because the Director's revocation of the petition's approval was upheld. The primary reason was the procedural error of attempting to change employers by amending an existing petition instead of filing a new one, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(o)(2)(iv)(C). Additionally, the new employment agreements were dated after the initial petition filing, and the petitioner failed to establish that all eligibility requirements were met from the time of filing and continuing through adjudication, as per 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l). The previous O-1A approval did not warrant deference as this was a new O-1B petition with new parties and facts.

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.