The petitioner, a sales director, sought an EB-2 national interest waiver, though the specific proposed endeavor is not described in this motion decision.

How the evidence was treated

• recommendation letter · ignored

  “not identify any specific error of law or fact in our prior decision”

  AAO decision text
• motion resubmission · discounted

  “cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by broadly disagreeing with our conclusions”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This is a second motion to reconsider following a prior dismissed appeal and a prior dismissed combined motion to reopen/reconsider. The AAO dismissed on purely procedural grounds, finding the Petitioner failed to identify any specific legal or factual error in the AAO's prior decision, instead reasserting a general disagreement and, for the first time on this second motion, alleging that an expert opinion letter had not been considered—an argument the AAO treated as an untimely new allegation outside the proper scope of a motion to reconsider. No substantive NIW prong analysis occurs in this decision.

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
• INA 203(b)(2)
• INA 291
• Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Petitioner, a mechanical engineer, proposed to advance thermal management solutions for high-power, compact, and rel
• The Petitioner, a senior engineering program manager specializing in electromechanical systems, proposed to advance moto
• The Petitioner proposed to provide innovative solutions to optimize freight and vessel operations in the U.S. shipping i
• The Petitioner, a sales manager, proposed an endeavor in the United States for which he sought an EB-2 national interest
• The Petitioner proposed to lead a nationwide initiative to develop and implement a standardized materials management mod