All Cases

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish the Beneficiary met at least three of the eight O-1 evidentiary criteria. Specifically, the 'awards' criterion was not met as the submitted award lacked national/international recognition for excellence and objective measurement criteria. The 'membership' criterion was not met as associations did not require outstanding achievements judged by experts. The 'published material about' criterion was not met as articles were either not about the Beneficiary, were submitted after filing, or were self-authored. The 'judging work of others' criterion was not met as mentoring roles were not equivalent to judging, lacking specificity and detail. Finally, 'original contributions of major significance' were not established, as testimonial letters made broad claims about company impact rather than field-wide significance and lacked specific details. Claims for high salary, scholarly articles, employment in a critical or essential capacity, and comparable evidence were not considered as they were raised for the first time on appeal or not pursued.

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.