The decision does not substantively describe the proposed endeavor; it addresses only procedural motion issues arising from a fourth motion following prior dismissals of the underlying NIW petition.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “These allegations are not new; they are essentially the same as the claims previously presented in the Petitioner's last motion.”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This is a fourth motion in the proceedings, addressing only an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim under Matter of Lozada and standard motion-to-reopen/reconsider requirements; no substantive NIW prong analysis occurs, as the AAO limits review to the prior decision and rejects the Petitioner's mistaken reading of Dakane v. U.S. Att'y Gen. regarding Lozada compliance.

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)(1)(ii)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
• Matter of Coelho
• Matter of O-S-G-

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