Vocational agricultural teacher sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Initial petition denied for failing to meet three of ten criteria; appeal dismissed. Motion to reopen and reconsider sought reconsideration without identifying legal error and submitted job offer dated after petition filing, which cannot establish eligibility retroactively. Motion dismissed.

Doctoral student seeking EB-1A classification claimed judging and original contribution criteria. AAO dismissed motions to reopen and reconsider, affirming that participation in project evaluation and conference presentations did not satisfy evidentiary requirements for extraordinary ability.

Marketing executive filed EB-1A petition; dismissed prior appeal. Motion presented new evidence on awards, published material, and judging criteria. AAO held new evidence insufficient; petitioner meets only one criterion, below three-criterion threshold.

A postdoctoral molecular and cellular biologist sought EB-1A classification. Prior appeal dismissed after finding only two of ten criteria met. Motion to reopen and reconsider was denied; AAO reaffirmed that petitioner satisfied only judging and scholarly articles criteria, did not meet original contributions and other criteria, and lacked sustained international acclaim necessary for extraordinary ability.