A businessman claiming extraordinary ability was denied by service center. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for procedural defects. Subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider were denied because petitioner submitted no new documentary facts or legal errors, only duplicative arguments and prior decisions.

An art history professor and researcher claimed extraordinary ability through peer review, publications, and scholarly contributions. The AAO found she met three initial criteria but concluded she lacked sustained national or international acclaim and did not rank among the very top in her field, ultimately denying the petition.

A rally racing athlete and entrepreneur sought extraordinary ability classification. After an earlier dismissed appeal, he filed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed both, finding no new facts and no incorrect application of law or policy, only reargument of issues already considered.

A scientific researcher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. The AAO dismissed a combined motion to reopen and reconsider because the petitioner failed to submit new facts or identify deficiencies in the prior dismissal; resubmitted evidence previously rejected and could not consider post-petition publications.