The petitioner, an Oracle EBS consultant, sought EB-2 classification with a national interest waiver to continue consulting work in the United States.

How the evidence was treated

• motion resubmission · discounted

  “the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion as untimely”

  AAO decision text

Notable

This decision is purely procedural: it is the AAO's dismissal of a fourth motion to reconsider (and an accompanying motion to reopen) filed after prior appeal and three prior motions were all dismissed, largely on untimeliness grounds. No substantive analysis of the threshold EB-2 classification or the three Dhanasar national-interest-waiver prongs occurs; the AAO instead addresses regulatory filing deadlines, incorrect fee payment, and the petitioner's equitable-tolling argument based on Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, which it rejects because the petitioner did not show any error of law or policy in the prior decision.

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)
• Matter of Coelho

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