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 proposed an endeavor described as being of national importance, though the specific field or activity is not identified in this motion decision.
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner's contentions in the current motion merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions.”
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 Petitioner's third motion to reconsider following a service center denial, an appeal dismissal, and two prior motion dismissals. The AAO declined to re-adjudicate the merits of any Dhanasar prong, treating the motion as procedurally deficient for merely rearguing previously considered claims. No substantive prong analysis was conducted in this decision. The AAO also noted the Petitioner had not cited any precedent decisions in her first motion, contrary to her claims.
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)(1)(ii)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
This is a third motion to reconsider that merely repeated prior appeal arguments without identifying any incorrect application of law or policy, so AAO declined to re-adjudicate the merits.
A motion to reconsider must cite specific legal/factual errors with precedent, not simply restate the original appeal brief or disagree with the outcome.
vague
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner, an aircraft mechanic and instructor, proposed to enhance aviation maintenance training programs, support
- The Petitioner seeks EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree with a national inter
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver of the job offer requirement, but the substance of the proposed e
- The Beneficiary, sponsored by a private airline, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability in a
- The petitioner sought an EB-2 national interest waiver as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the sp