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 underlying proposed endeavor, as it addresses only the procedural sufficiency of a third motion to reconsider.
How the evidence was treated
- motion resubmission · discounted
“she does not identify any erroneous application of law or policy to demonstrate that our decision was incorrect”
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 the fourth adverse decision in the same case (denial, appeal dismissal, two prior motions to reconsider dismissed, and now this third motion to reconsider). The AAO does not re-examine the merits of any Dhanasar prong; it dismisses solely because the Petitioner rehashed prior arguments without identifying legal or factual error, citing the limited scope of motions to reconsider under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3) and Matter of O-S-G-.
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
- Matter of O-S-G-
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Petitioner's third motion to reconsider merely reasserted prior arguments and evidence without identifying any legal or policy error in the AAO's earlier decision, as required under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3).
A motion to reconsider must pinpoint a specific legal or policy error in the prior decision; simply repeating earlier arguments or evidence will fail regardless of underlying merits.
vague
mixed
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