Automotive design engineer seeking extraordinary ability classification met only two of ten evidentiary criteria. Appeal dismissed because petitioner failed to provide brief or additional evidence and did not meet the three-criterion threshold required for EB-1A eligibility.

A project management specialist sought extraordinary ability classification, claiming three criteria: awards, original contributions and leading role. After an earlier dismissed appeal, he moved to reopen with an online article about a mayoral letter. The motion was dismissed because nothing showed the letter was a nationally or internationally recognized award.

Construction manager and civil engineer sought EB-2 NIW. AAO dismissed the fifth motion to reopen and reconsider on procedural grounds: petitioner failed to establish new facts warranting reopening or show erroneous law or policy application. Merits were not addressed.

Chief technology officer sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Met only two of ten evidentiary criteria after multiple appeals. AAO dismissed motion to reopen and reconsider, finding petitioner failed to establish three required criteria and did not identify legal errors in prior decisions.