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 petitioner proposed to operate his own consultancy company in the United States.
Field: consultancy services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“he submits documentation previously submitted”
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 is the fifth combined motion to reopen and reconsider in the same proceeding following denial, a dismissed appeal, and four prior dismissed combined motions. The AAO did not re-adjudicate the underlying NIW prongs on the merits; it dismissed the motion purely on procedural grounds because the petitioner reargued prior evidence and issues without stating new facts or identifying legal/factual error, per the limited scope-of-motion rule.
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)(1)(i)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- Matter of O-S-G-
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Petitioner proposed to work as an IT consultant in the United States, providing cybersecurity and digital transforma
- The petitioner proposed to establish his own company providing specialized business consultancy, auditing, and training
- The petitioner proposed to work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects t
- The Petitioner proposed to start a project management consultancy in the United States that would help small and mid-siz
- The Petitioner proposed to establish a legal consultancy in the United States focused on alternative dispute resolution