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, a lawyer, proposed an endeavor described in a business plan, though the specific substance of the endeavor is not detailed in this decision.
Field: law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen.”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“Reasserting previously stated facts does not meet the requirements of a motion to reopen.”
AAO decision text
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
This decision does not reach the merits of the NIW petition at all. The sole issue on appeal was procedural: whether the Director properly dismissed a combined motion to reopen/reconsider. The AAO found the motion to reopen was properly dismissed (business plan revisions merely reiterated prior facts) but found the Director erred by failing to address the motion to reconsider at all, and remanded solely for the Director to evaluate the motion to reconsider on its merits. No prong analysis occurred at the AAO level; the footnote indicates the underlying denial was based on prongs 1 and 3 of Dhanasar, but those are not analyzed here.
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. 103.3
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Procedural: Director properly denied motion to reopen (no new facts, just reiterated business plan) but failed to address motion to reconsider's legal arguments, requiring remand for a new decision on reconsideration.
On motions, submit genuinely new facts/evidence for reopening, not restated prior submissions; separately brief reconsideration's legal-error arguments distinctly so adjudicators must address them.
moderate
other
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