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 decision does not describe the specifics of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor beyond referring generally to it in the context of prior national-interest-waiver proceedings.
Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive
“the Petitioner had not established the national importance of her proposed endeavor, and thus her eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong”
“we dismissed the subsequent appeal, concluding that the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first prong”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“Resubmitting previously provided evidence or reasserting previously stated facts do not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen.”
AAO decision text
Where this case turned
- Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
Notable
Purely procedural motion decision; the AAO declined to reach prongs two and three, citing Matter of L-A-C- and Bagamasbad for the principle that agencies need not address unnecessary issues, and dismissed both the motion to reconsider (no argument of legal/policy error) and the motion to reopen (no new facts, only resubmission of prior evidence).
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
- Matter of L-A-C-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner's combined motion failed procedurally: no new facts for reopening and no claim of legal/policy error for reconsideration, so prior national-importance deficiency stood unrebutted.
On motion, present genuinely new, previously unavailable evidence or identify specific legal/policy error; resubmitting prior evidence cannot cure a national-importance deficiency.
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