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.

A self-petitioner sought an EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver. The service center denied it as not well positioned, then dismissed a combined motion. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the petitioner did not challenge the finding that the motion stated no new facts, so the issue was waived.

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.

A businessman claiming extraordinary ability was denied by service center. AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for procedural defects. Subsequent motions to reopen and reconsider were denied because petitioner submitted no new documentary facts or legal errors, only duplicative arguments and prior decisions.