This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner is described only as an entrepreneur in civil engineering; the decision provides no further detail on the specific proposed endeavor because it does not reach the merits.
Field: civil engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner does not state any new facts or submit any additional evidence”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This is a purely procedural combined motion decision that does not reach the NIW merits/prongs at all. The AAO dismissed the motion to reopen because no new facts or evidence were submitted, and dismissed the motion to reconsider because the Petitioner failed to identify any incorrect application of law or policy, instead making only vague, unsubstantiated claims that the prior decision failed to address arguments or evidence.
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)
- Matter of Coelho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner filed combined motions without submitting new facts/evidence (failing reopen standard) and without identifying any specific incorrect application of law or policy (failing reconsideration standard).
A motion to reopen/reconsider must include new evidence or pinpoint specific legal/factual errors in the prior decision; generic dissatisfaction is insufficient.
vague
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers