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 financial analyst, sought an EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability and a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement to work in the United States in a financial capacity.
Field: financial analysis · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
AAO confirmed Petitioner did not establish meeting at least three of the six criteria under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) for exceptional ability classification.
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion.”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“We have already considered and analyzed the Petitioner's evidence under the preponderance of evidence standard”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“We have already considered and analyzed the Petitioner's evidence under the preponderance of evidence standard”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“We have already considered and analyzed the Petitioner's evidence under the preponderance of evidence standard”
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 the sixth combined motion to reopen and reconsider following an original SCOPS denial, one dismissed appeal, and five prior dismissed combined motions — an unusually protracted procedural history. The AAO's substantive analysis is entirely procedural: the motion to reopen was dismissed for lack of new facts (resubmitted documents only), and the motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner merely reargued previously considered issues without identifying a specific legal or factual error. The NIW prong analysis was never reached in this decision because the threshold EB-2 exceptional ability finding was dispositive and had already been resolved in prior decisions; the AAO declined to re-adjudicate the merits.
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to present new facts or identify legal/factual error in prior decision; motion merely rehashed prior arguments, so both motion to reopen and reconsider failed procedurally.
On repeated motions, submit genuinely new evidence and pinpoint specific legal/factual errors—reiterating prior arguments will not satisfy 8 C.F.R. 103.5 standards.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
- The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
- The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
- The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
- The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod