The decision does not describe the underlying proposed endeavor; it addresses only procedural motion standards following a prior appeal dismissal on Dhanasar prong 1 grounds.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “he does not introduce any new evidence, or a new fact supported by documentary evidence to establish proper cause to reopen our appeal decision”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This is a purely procedural combined motion decision: the AAO does not substantively re-analyze the Dhanasar prongs or underlying EB-2 eligibility, instead affirming its prior appeal decision (which found prong 1 not met) because the Petitioner raised only general, unsupported assertions of error and introduced no new facts or evidence. Prongs 2, 3, and threshold EB-2 eligibility remain expressly reserved, as in the prior decision.

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)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Matter of Coelho

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