An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification had a petition denied and an earlier appeal dismissed. Combined motions to reopen and reconsider were filed after the 33-day deadline, and the delay was not shown to be reasonable and beyond the petitioner's control. The AAO dismissed both motions as untimely and for lacking new facts or legal error.

A self-petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the appeal was previously summarily dismissed along with earlier motions. On a second combined motion, the AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen and the motion to reconsider because no new facts, brief, evidence, or legal error were shown. No criteria were decided.

A micropigmentation makeup artist sought extraordinary ability classification in the arts. After an earlier summary dismissal of the appeal, she filed combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed them because no new fact showed the appeal had identified a specific error, and no misapplied law or policy was shown.

An individual seeking extraordinary ability classification filed a third combined motion to reopen and reconsider after an earlier denial and appeal dismissal. The petitioner offered medical records to excuse an untimely earlier motion. The AAO dismissed it, finding no new facts showing error and no legal basis to accept a late motion to reconsider.