The decision incorporates by reference the endeavor description from the prior appeal but does not restate its substance here; it centers on a material change the Petitioner made to his description of the proposed endeavor.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not submitted new facts supported by documentary evidence sufficient to warrant reopening his appeal”

  AAO decision text

Notable

The AAO did not reach the NIW prongs at all; the appeal and motions were dismissed on a purely procedural ground — the Petitioner made an impermissible material change to the described endeavor under Matter of Izummi, failed to contest that finding on appeal (deemed abandoned per Matter of R-A-M-), and again failed to address it in the motions, rendering the dispositive issue unrebutted and all other prong arguments unreached (citing Patel v. Garland and Matter of Chen).

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Matter of Izummi
• Matter of R-A-M-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
• The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
• The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
• The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp