The decision does not detail the endeavor beyond identifying the Petitioner as an entrepreneur who submitted a business plan; the case here concerns only the timeliness of a motion filing, not the merits of the endeavor.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not assert any new facts to establish that we erred in our previous decision and offers the exact same documents previously submitted”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This decision is entirely procedural, addressing only the timeliness of the Petitioner's third motion (a combined motion to reopen and reconsider) after two prior untimely motions; no NIW prong or threshold EB-2 issue is substantively reached. The Petitioner unsuccessfully invoked the common-law 'mailbox rule' (citing Adams v. Lindsell (1818)) to argue his filing should be deemed timely upon mailing rather than receipt; the AAO rejected this, noting 8 C.F.R. 103.2(a)(7)(i) governs filing by actual receipt and citing Nixon and Accardi for the binding force of regulations.

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(a)(2)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
• 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)

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