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 intended to manage a company operating in the field of water purification in the United States.
Field: water purification · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner reiterates information already in the record; however, he does not state a new fact”
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 purely procedural combined motion decision that does not re-analyze the Dhanasar prongs on their merits; the AAO incorporates its prior appellate decision by reference and dismisses both the motion to reopen (no new fact/evidence) and motion to reconsider (Petitioner failed to identify any incorrect application of law or policy, merely citing Dhanasar and Cardozo-Fonseca in general terms).
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)(ii)
- 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 Coelho
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