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, a marketing specialist, proposed to operate his own retail consultancy, advisory, and training company in Florida.
Field: retail consulting/marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The underlying appellate decision found the Petitioner did not qualify for EB-2 classification as an individual of exceptional ability; on motion the Petitioner merely reasserts having met five of six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) without new evidence.
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“The Petitioner, however, does not present any new facts and does not submit any new evidence.”
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 a motion decision following a prior appeal dismissal; the AAO had reserved its analysis of the three Dhanasar prongs in that appellate decision, resting solely on the Petitioner's failure to establish the underlying EB-2 (exceptional ability) classification. The instant motion decision does not reach the Dhanasar prongs at all, dismissing the motions purely on procedural grounds (no new facts/evidence for reopening; no showing of legal/policy error for reconsideration).
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)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
- Matter of Coelho
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner failed to present new facts (motion to reopen) or identify legal/policy error (motion to reconsider); underlying EB-2 classification eligibility remained unestablished.
On motions, submit genuinely new evidence or pinpoint specific legal/factual errors in the prior decision—merely restating the same record and arguments will not succeed.
moderate
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers