dismissedFEB112025_01B52032025-02-11 · motion_reconsider · 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 human resources director, sought to continue work in her field in the United States, though the specific proposed endeavor is not detailed in this decision.

Field: human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“correctly determined that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her proposed endeavor is of national importance under Dhanasar 's first prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

motion resubmission · discounted
“The same evidence and assertions do not warrant reconsideration of our prior decision now.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

1,581coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

This is a second motion to reconsider following a prior dismissed appeal and a prior dismissed motion to reconsider; the AAO's review is confined to whether the immediately preceding motion decision misapplied law or policy, and it declines to re-examine the underlying merits in detail, relying on prior decisions' findings that the national importance prong (Dhanasar prong 1) was not met.

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
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer