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 specifics of the proposed endeavor; the AAO previously found the Petitioner's inconsistent representations obscured its nature.
EB-2 threshold — not met
The Petitioner had not demonstrated that he fulfilled at least three of the six regulatory criteria for exceptional ability set forth at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(A)-(F).
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner's inconsistent representations obscured the nature of his proposed endeavor such that he did not demonstrate its national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“does not explain or demonstrate how we erred in dismissing his appeal”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
The motion was dismissed on purely procedural grounds: the Petitioner merely reasserted the same evidence and arguments from the appeal and RFE response without identifying any legal or factual error in the AAO's prior decision, consistent with the boilerplate standard from Matter of O-S-G-.
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)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- Matter of O-S-G-
- Poursina v. USCIS
- USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
This is a procedural motion to reconsider, not a merits ruling; dismissed because Petitioner merely repeated prior arguments without identifying legal or factual error in the AAO's dismissal.
A motion to reconsider must specifically identify legal or factual errors in the prior decision, not simply restate the same evidence and arguments.
vague
person_focused
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