dismissedAUG042022_02B52032022-08-04 · motion_reopen · Texas Service Center

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, a mathematics teacher, sought to work in the United States and claimed her work would have national impact and importance, though the underlying endeavor was not substantively discussed in this procedural motion decision.

Field: mathematics teaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

How the evidence was treated

motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“Because the documents are dated 2021, and they relate to events that occurred in 2021, after the 2012 petition filing date, they may not establish eligibility.”
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 motion decision (the fourth motion in a chain following a summary dismissal of the original appeal). The AAO never reaches the merits of the NIW claim; it repeatedly holds that the Petitioner must first overcome the summary dismissal of her 2017 appeal by showing she identified specific legal/factual errors, which she never did. New evidence submitted was also untimely, postdating the 2012 filing date under Matter of Michelin Tire Corp. All three prongs and the threshold EB-2 determination are left unaddressed.

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)(1)(i)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer