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 in detail; he is described only as an entrepreneur seeking EB-2 classification and a national interest waiver.
Field: unspecified (entrepreneur) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
On the underlying appeal, AAO found the Petitioner did not challenge the Director's finding of ineligibility as an advanced degree professional or exceptional-ability individual, deeming the issue waived; on motion he did not contest this waiver, and new evidence bearing on exceptional ability was not considered because it fell outside the scope of motion review and largely post-dated filing.
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · ignored
“our review on motion is limited to reviewing our most recent decision”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“A petition may not be approved at a future date after the petitioner or beneficiary becomes eligible based on a new set of facts.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · ignored
“he has not presented new facts which establish his eligibility for the requested benefit”
AAO decision text - other · discounted
“we accord them no weight as we cannot determine whether they support his claims”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“none of the reference letters in the record ... were from individuals representing the professional association”
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 procedural motion decision (combined motion to reopen/reconsider) following a prior appeal dismissal; the AAO never reached NIW prong analysis because the Petitioner had waived challenge to the underlying EB-2 classification denial (advanced degree professional / exceptional ability) on appeal, and on motion did not contest that waiver. New evidence (work experience letters, job offer letters, Chamber of Commerce membership, untranslated foreign-language documents) was excluded both as outside the scope of motion review and, in dicta, as post-filing or improperly translated.
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. 103.2(b)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- Matter of Coelho
- 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 failed to challenge on appeal the Director's finding of EB-2 ineligibility (advanced degree/exceptional ability), waiving the issue; NIW eligibility thus never assessed, and new motion evidence was post-filing or untranslated.
Always contest every adverse underlying finding on appeal; failure to challenge classification eligibility waives it and forecloses reaching the NIW merits on later motions.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers