Development director self-petitioned for EB-1A visa. Applicant met three evidentiary criteria but appeal dismissed on final merits. Motions to reopen and reconsider dismissed because petitioner submitted no new facts or evidence and failed to show AAO misapplied law or policy.

A petitioner sought EB-2 advanced degree or exceptional ability classification with national interest waiver under Dhanasar. The AAO dismissed the motion to reopen, finding the petitioner resubmitted identical documentation already in the record without new facts supported by evidence, and failed to comply with Form I-290B instructions for filing additional materials.

A dancer and choreographer sought extraordinary ability classification. After the denial, an appeal dismissal and several earlier dismissed motions, she filed a fourth combined motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed both, finding no incorrect application of law or policy and no new facts or evidence.

A business process reengineering consultant sought a national interest waiver under the second preference category. After several earlier denials and dismissals, the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider. The AAO dismissed it because no incorrect application of law or policy was shown, and the arguments were repetitive or could have been raised earlier.