The Petitioner, an entrepreneurial business management consultant, sought to work in the United States providing consulting services in that capacity.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “he provides much of the same arguments regarding the merits of his NIW eligibility that he offered throughout these proceedings”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This decision is an appeal of a dismissal of a combined motion to reopen/reconsider, not a direct appeal of the NIW denial; the AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify specific legal or factual error in the motion decision, and only in dicta noted it would affirm the denial on the merits. The AAO also flagged that the Petitioner filed a subsequent, similarly-supported NIW petition and questioned whether that approval was warranted or whether revocation-on-notice might be appropriate.

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)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
• The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
• The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
• The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
• The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution