The Petitioner operated one or more companies and submitted a business plan, though the specific nature of the proposed endeavor is not described in this procedural motion decision.

How the evidence was treated

• business plan · discounted

  “Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute the submission of "new facts."”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not presented new facts establishing that we erred in dismissing his prior motion.”

  AAO decision text
• other · ignored

  “we will only consider new evidence to the extent that it pertains to our latest decision”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This decision is purely procedural, addressing only whether a combined motion to reopen and reconsider met regulatory requirements; it does not reach any substantive NIW prong analysis. It follows a lengthy procedural history including a summarily dismissed appeal, a second appeal decided on the merits, and two prior motions to reconsider that were also summarily dismissed.

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)(2)
• 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

• 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