The Petitioner proposed to provide business process reengineering consulting services through his company, arguing this work impacts matters of national importance tied to federal statutes such as the Government Performance and Results Act and the Clinger-Cohen Act.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “these resubmitted documents did not constitute evidence of new facts”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This decision is purely procedural, addressing only whether the Petitioner's motion to reconsider met the standard under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3); it does not substantively re-analyze the NIW prongs, though it references a prior dispositive finding that the endeavor lacked national importance under Matter of Dhanasar. The case has an extensive procedural history involving multiple prior appeals and motions, several dismissed for untimeliness or lack of new facts. The AAO also invoked the rule that a motion to reconsider cannot raise legal arguments that could have been made earlier.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
• 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 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