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 marketing manager specializing in search engine optimization was proposed by a company for O-1A extraordinary ability in business. The appeal was summarily dismissed because the filing named no specific error of law or fact and the promised brief or evidence never arrived.

A software and investment firm sought O-1 classification for an investment and marketing specialist. After a summary dismissal of the appeal, the firm filed untimely combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The AAO found the delay was not reasonable or beyond the firm's control and dismissed both motions without reaching the merits.

A talent management business sought O-1 classification for a singer and performer in the arts, which is not O-1A. The director denied the petition for lack of extraordinary ability evidence and missing contracts and itinerary. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error was identified and no promised brief was filed.