dismissedNOV202024_04B52032024-11-20 · motion_reconsider · Texas Service Center

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 Beneficiary, an industrial automation specialist, sought to work in industrial automation, with the Petitioner later asserting on appeal that he should instead be considered an owner of the petitioning company.

Field: industrial automation · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Director found Beneficiary satisfied three of the exceptional ability criteria (academic record, ten years' experience, professional association membership) but the totality of evidence did not show a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the field; AAO also noted in a footnote that the claimed professional association membership was not properly established because the organizations did not require a bachelor's degree for membership.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the Director stated the Petitioner had not shown that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor "stands to sufficiently extend beyond the individuals the beneficiary would serve to impact the industry or field more broadly."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

other · discounted
“a petitioner may not make material changes to a petition that has already been filed in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements”
AAO decision text
motion resubmission · discounted
“the Petitioner then proceeds to discuss the September 2023 decision...rather than identifying an erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact”
AAO decision text
certification membership · discounted
“the Petitioner did not establish that the...organizations require such a degree”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar

1,748coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

This appeal was procedurally limited to review of the Director's dismissal of a motion to reconsider, not the underlying denial itself; the AAO emphasized it would not re-adjudicate the petition anew. The Petitioner attempted to recharacterize the Beneficiary's role as a company owner rather than an employee, which the AAO rejected as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi/Michelin Tire Corp. The Petitioner's request to have the motion treated as an appeal was also rejected as unsupported by regulation.

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(a)(1)(ii)
8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
Matter of Izummi

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner appealed only the motion to reconsider dismissal, not the underlying denial, then attempted an impermissible material change (owner vs. specialist) and failed to identify legal/factual error in that dismissal.

Transferable lesson

Appeal the underlying denial directly, not just a motion dismissal, and never attempt to recharacterize the endeavor on appeal—file a new petition instead.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

field_advancement · geographic_or_shortage_area

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer