Maybe it will be helpful for your understanding of this situation to see things from Level's side.
Level has to deal daily with "friendly fraud" on a large scale on a daily basis. "Friendly fraud" is fraud due to inappropriate use of charge backs. Here is a CBS News article that discusses it more and states that "the latest research" shows that 86% of charge backs are fraudulent. If you google "friendly fraud problem airline," you will see that there is an enormous industry built around helping airlines fight friendly fraud.
So, a guy in a Level cubicle received your dispute from VISA. He looked you and your credit card up in his computer. His computer said you no showed ticket #1 and you flew on ticket #2. He looked for comments from customer service regarding you contacting the company about the problem; there was nothing. He thought, "Caught you, scammer! You missed your first flight; now, you are trying to get your replacement ticket for free." He probably didn't even look to see that the tickets were the same date/same flight. Possibly using a tool offered by one of the companies that helps airlines fight friendly fraud, he crafted a response to VISA saying you missed the flight on ticket #1 and you flew the itinerary for ticket #2, availing yourself of the very service that you are now disputing. He may have even wrote something like, "Clearly friendly fraud -- got the service she is now disputing." VISA agreed.
I hate to tell you this, but he is right about you being a friendly fraudster (though he is not right about you being a scammer). Why?
Here is a Forbes article that gives details of the Fair Credit Billing Act and its regulations regarding chargebacks/credit card disputes. Look at the three reasons the Fair Credit Billing Act allows a consumer to dispute a charge. Your last contact with Level prior to disputing the charge was to agree to the price on a service the merchant was offering -- a flight to Spain. Once home, you did not contact Level to try to correct the problem with ticket #1. You just disputed the charge on ticket #2 -- a ticket which, again, you agreed to the price for the service. Since you didn't contact the company to make a "good faith effort" to resolve the problem, you do not meet any of the criteria for an allowable dispute. Level could actually argue that your dispute should be dismissed because it doesn't meet criteria under the Fair Credit Billing Act; this tactic has been used with success by some companies when customers do not contact them to try to correct the problem before the dispute.
My opinion is that VISA was legally correct to find in favor of Level because of the paragraph above and because you received the service at the agreed upon price. You don't get to agree to the price with the plan not to pay it and the expectation that the credit card company will rubber stamp your unilateral decision to violate the agreement you made with the merchant. That VISA made the legally correct decision (at least in my opinion) is a big reason why I don't think further contact with them will be helpful to you.
Once more... all of this does not mean that Level does not have a moral obligation to honor your original ticket price. They should, and they should refund the price of the second ticket. Level is at fault for economically harming you. The initial channel you chose for resolution was the wrong one. It was a mistake, but it was a mistake that probably 75% of the population would have made.
So... give Dwayne time. 👍🏻