The decision does not describe the underlying proposed endeavor; it only addresses a combined motion to reopen and reconsider a prior AAO dismissal of the NIW appeal.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner does not state a new fact, nor does he support such statement with documentary evidence”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This decision is a motion to reopen/reconsider a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO incorporates its earlier Dhanasar analysis by reference rather than re-analyzing the three prongs, so no substantive prong findings are made here. The Petitioner's arguments centered on the preponderance-of-evidence standard (citing Chawathe and Cardozo-Fonseca) and alleged failure to apply Dhanasar, both of which the AAO rejected as unsubstantiated on the existing record.

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)(ii)
• 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 Coelho

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