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 decision does not describe the substance of the proposed endeavor; it addresses only procedural aspects of a combined motion to reopen and reconsider a prior NIW denial.
Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner did not address the third Dhanasar prong in his appeal-or his prior combined motion-thereby waiving that issue.”
“did not address or contest [SCOPS'] specific findings regarding the third [Dhanasar] prong," thereby waiving the issue, which is dispositive.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the motion to reopen before us does not present a new fact supported by documentary evidence material to the issue of whether we erred”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- NEW issue waived procedurally · p3
Notable
This is a purely procedural motion decision: the AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen (no new facts material to the latest decision) and the motion to reconsider (Petitioner waived the dispositive third Dhanasar prong by failing to contest it in the appeal and prior motion). No substantive merits analysis of prongs 1 or 2 is undertaken in this decision; the AAO incorporates prior decisions by reference and emphasizes that new 2024 evidence could not establish eligibility because it post-dated the October 2022 filing and fell outside the motion's permissible scope.
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. 103.2(b)(1)
- 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 Katigbak
- Matter of O-R-E-
- Matter of R-A-M-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner repeatedly failed to address SCOPS' and AAO's findings on the third Dhanasar prong across appeal and prior motion, waiving the dispositive issue; new motion also lacked new facts or identified legal error.
On appeal or motion, explicitly rebut every dispositive ground cited by USCIS, including the third Dhanasar prong, or risk waiver and summary dismissal regardless of merits.
vague
mixed
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