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 geologist, sought classification based on exceptional ability and a national interest waiver, proposing to develop a web application functioning as a digital education tool for identifying rocks and minerals.
Field: geology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The underlying denial and prior appellate decisions found the Petitioner did not meet the initial evidentiary requirements for exceptional-ability classification (e.g., licensure/certification and recognition criteria under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)); this motion did not present new facts sufficient to disturb that finding.
How the evidence was treated
- business plan · discounted
“this documentation cannot be considered as evidence to support the petition or as new pertinent facts”
AAO decision text - recommendation letter · discounted
“the record already contains letters of support and statements from the Petitioner describing his education and purported software development experience”
AAO decision text - certification membership · discounted
“the completion certificate for this course...are all dated 2022, which post-date the petition's filing date of 2021”
AAO decision text - motion resubmission · discounted
“the documentation submitted on motion is a repackaging of material that has been previously submitted in this case”
AAO decision text - awards · discounted
“he did not explain how that evidence satisfied the criterion”
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 second motion to reopen following two prior AAO dismissals; the AAO's analysis is entirely procedural, focused on whether the Petitioner presented 'new facts' under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2), and never substantively re-examines the NIW prongs or exceptional-ability criteria on their merits. The underlying case concerns exceptional-ability classification under 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k), not the advanced-degree professional threshold.
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)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- 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