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 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.

Administrative services manager claimed extraordinary ability under EB-1A. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider because petitioner failed to provide new evidence timely, did not demonstrate erroneous application of law, and did not establish any of the eight evidentiary criteria.

An attorney sought EB-2 NIW for a proposed mediation and conciliation company. The AAO affirmed dismissal of motions to reopen, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial merit and national importance of her specific endeavor, and that she was not well-positioned to advance it beyond industry-wide importance.