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 specific endeavor; it addresses only the procedural propriety of a fourth motion to reconsider a prior denial of an NIW petition.
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
- recommendation letter · discounted
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 a fourth successive motion to reconsider; the AAO dismisses it purely on procedural grounds, finding the petitioner's arguments addressed the initial denial and appeal dismissal rather than the immediately preceding (third) motion decision, as required by the scope-of-motion rule. No substantive re-analysis of the Dhanasar prongs occurs; the AAO merely notes that the petitioner's national-importance and business-plan arguments misconstrue or misquote its earlier decisions.
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)(1)(ii)
- 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, 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