dismissedMAR052026_06B52032026-03-05 · motion_reopen

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, an arts, drama, and music teacher and entrepreneur, sought EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver, proposing to continue work in arts and music education in the United States.

Field: arts, drama and music teaching / entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

SCOPS denied the petition for failure to establish eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification; the AAO dismissed the prior appeal because the Petitioner did not address or contest SCOPS' specific findings on EB-2 eligibility; on motion, the Petitioner cited inapplicable regulatory provisions (O nonimmigrant and extraordinary ability immigrant standards) rather than presenting new facts to cure the deficiency.

How the evidence was treated

certification membership · discounted
“The Petitioner's arguments and evidence rely on legal standards applicable to different visa categories rather than presenting new facts for the prior decision.”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“Because the Petitioner relies on regulatory provisions that are not applicable to the classification sought and does not present new facts supported by documentary evidence, the Petitioner has not demonstrated that reopening the proceeding is warranted.”
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

The motion was dismissed primarily on procedural grounds: the Petitioner cited regulatory provisions governing O nonimmigrant visas and EB-1 extraordinary ability petitions rather than the EB-2 exceptional ability / NIW standards, and failed to present new facts supported by documentary evidence as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The AAO did not reach the merits of any NIW prong. The prior appeal was itself dismissed because the Petitioner failed to address SCOPS' EB-2 threshold findings, making this a case of compounded procedural failures rather than substantive NIW analysis.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner's motion relied on regulatory provisions governing extraordinary-ability/O-visa classifications, not EB-2 NIW standards, and presented no new facts addressing the prior decision's actual findings.

Transferable lesson

On motion to reopen, cite the correct classification's legal standards and submit genuinely new, outcome-relevant evidence addressing the specific prior denial grounds.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer