dismissedMAR062023_04B52032023-03-06 · motion_reopen · Texas Service Center

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 application manager in the IT field, proposed an endeavor related to improving data security, including password management algorithms, and sought to demonstrate this work's national importance.

Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the field in which the Petitioner proposes to work is indeed important; however, this is insufficient in itself to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”

“the additional evidence the Petitioner provides on motion does not overcome the reasoning underlying our prior decision.”

“The letters of recommendation do not offer sufficient detail about the Petitioner's proposed endeavor and why it is nationally important.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

recommendation letter · discounted
“the authors discuss topics such as the Petitioner's personal and professional qualifications ... and the importance of the IT field.”
AAO decision text
resume experience · discounted
“the Petitioner's experience, academics, and personal qualities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, whereas the issue here is the Petitioner's eligibility under the first prong.”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“As our prior decision already explained the deficiencies in this type of evidence, the additional documentation cannot be considered new.”
AAO decision text
other · discounted
“These documents demonstrate the varied applicability and importance of the IT field.”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor

1,581coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

The AAO treats the motion to reopen strictly under the 'new facts' requirement, holding that evidence merely expanding on previously-rejected categories (qualifications and field importance) cannot constitute new facts sufficient to warrant reopening, independent of the merits analysis.

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)(2)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer