dismissedSEP192024_03B52032024-09-19 · motion_reconsider · Texas Service Center

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, an industrial and quality engineer, sought to work in his field in the United States, claiming eligibility as an advanced-degree professional or individual of exceptional ability with a national interest waiver.

Field: industrial and quality engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO's prior appeal decision found Petitioner did not establish eligibility as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability; on motion, AAO withdrew the adverse licensure finding (Petitioner met 3 of 6 exceptional-ability criteria) but did not remand because the NIW prong 1 failure was independently dispositive.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we adopted and affirmed the Director's determination that the Petitioner did not establish his proposed endeavor satisfied the national importance element of the first prong”

“he effectively reproduced the identical text he presented to the Director in response to the request for evidence (RFE)”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

certification membership · credited
motion resubmission · discounted
“he effectively reproduced the identical text he presented to the Director in response to the request for evidence (RFE)”
AAO decision text

Where this case turned

Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking

1,581coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

This is a motion to reconsider a prior AAO appeal dismissal, not a fresh merits review; the AAO's analysis is largely procedural, holding that mere disagreement with prior conclusions does not satisfy the legal-error standard for reconsideration under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3), and declining to remand on the exceptional-ability licensure issue because the dispositive national-importance failure under Dhanasar prong 1 rendered any such remand purposeless (citing Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C-).

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)(3)
Matter of L-A-C-
Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer