The Petitioner proposed to operate a business in the United States, though the specifics of the endeavor are not detailed in this procedural decision.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “generally reiterated the benefits of the Petitioner's profession, his qualifications, and the claimed economic impacts”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This is a purely procedural decision on the Petitioner's third round of combined motions to reopen/reconsider, following a summary dismissal of the original appeal (untimely brief mailed to the wrong address) and dismissal of a first set of combined motions. The AAO never reaches the merits of the NIW prongs; it dismisses because the Petitioner's brief addresses only substantive NIW eligibility without identifying any error in the AAO's prior procedural decision, as required by 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)-(ii).

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
• Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

• The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
• The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
• The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
• The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers