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 decision does not describe the substance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor; it concerns only procedural timeliness of a motion filing.
How the evidence was treated
- other · discounted
“that submission was not accepted because it was sent to the wrong location”
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 is purely procedural: it addresses only the timeliness of a second motion to reopen (following a first motion dismissed as untimely due to misfiling), and does not reach the merits of the NIW eligibility prongs. The Petitioner argued a USPS shipping label proved timely filing, but the AAO found the label was addressed to the wrong filing location.
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
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