The Petitioner, a management consultant entrepreneur, sought to work in the United States as a consultant, though the AAO had previously found she did not establish the endeavor's national importance.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “Petitioner has not provided new facts or additional evidence to establish that we erred in dismissing her third motion to reopen.”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This is the fourth round of motions in the same case; the AAO dismissed the underlying motions on purely procedural grounds (untimeliness of the initial motion and failure to address the scope-limiting prior decision), never reaching the merits of national importance in this decision. The prongs were not substantively analyzed here because the motion was procedurally barred by the scope-of-motion rule at 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1).

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)(1)(i)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution