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 skincare specialist, proposed to operate an 'aesthetics and beauty clinic' in the United States.
Field: skincare/aesthetics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
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 decision is procedural: it addresses a combined motion to reopen/reconsider following a prior summary dismissal of the appeal and dismissal of an earlier untimely motion. No substantive NIW prong analysis occurs; the Petitioner merely reiterated prior claims without new facts or legal argument, so the AAO found no basis to reopen or reconsider.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
- Matter of Coelho
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