An economist sought extraordinary ability classification on reopened appeal after a finding that he submitted an altered paper naming him sole author. The AAO upheld the willful misrepresentation finding, concluded the evidentiary criteria and top-of-field standing were not shown, and dismissed the appeal without reaching continued work in the field.

An accounting and tax consultant sought EB-1A classification in business. After the petition was denied and several motions were handled, the appeal concerned dismissal of a sixth motion to reopen and reconsider. The AAO dismissed the appeal because the motion offered no new facts or evidence and identified no legal error.

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.

Business consultant and executive self-petitioner claimed three EB-1A criteria. AAO dismissed motion to reopen because evidence was either available during original RFE or postdated the petition filing, violating the requirement to establish eligibility at time of petition.