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 Petitioner's proposed endeavor; it addresses only the procedural timeliness of a prior motion.
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the current motion does not address the untimeliness of his most recent prior combined motion”
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
Purely procedural decision on a fifth/sixth-round combined motion to reopen/reconsider; the underlying NIW merits are never reached. The AAO dismisses because the petitioner failed to challenge the timeliness finding from the immediately preceding decision, which is the sole issue within the scope of review under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)-(ii). No substantive prong analysis occurs; the petition remains denied on the earlier merits decision incorporated by reference.
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)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
The combined motion failed to address the dispositive procedural defect—untimeliness of the prior motion—and raised no new facts or legal/policy error regarding that issue, so denial stood.
When filing motions to reopen/reconsider, directly rebut the specific procedural ground (e.g., timeliness) cited in the prior decision, not the underlying 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