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 nurse, sought an NIW-based EB-2 petition; on this fourth motion she highlighted new employment and accomplishments at a company along with additional nurse training program information.
Field: nursing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
How the evidence was treated
- resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner has not stated new facts or submitted additional evidence to establish that we erred in dismissing our prior motions”
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 fourth motion to reopen following an earlier appeal dismissal and combined motion dismissal; the AAO did not re-adjudicate or substantively address any NIW prong, instead finding the Petitioner failed to state new facts under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2) sufficient to warrant reopening. The scope-of-motion limitation (8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)-(ii)) confined review to the latest prior decision only.
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)(12)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- Matter of Coelho
- Matter of Izummi
- Matter of Katigbak
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Fourth motion to reopen failed because the new evidence (new employer, employment verification letter, training details) post-dated filing and did not constitute new facts showing error in the prior dismissal.
Motions to reopen must present new facts bearing on the prior decision's specific errors; post-filing job changes cannot cure a petition's original eligibility deficiencies.
vague
person_focused
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, a pharmacist, proposed to work in the United States through her own company providing pharmaceutical reg
- The Petitioner, a Brazilian-trained physiotherapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist and entrepreneur in the Un
- The Petitioner, a resident physician in New York holding a Chinese bachelor of medicine (MBBS) degree found equivalent t
- The Petitioner, a music therapist, proposed to establish and expand music therapy services and community music programs
- The Petitioner, a physical therapist, proposed to work as a physical therapist in the United States while operating his