The AAO dismissed combined motions to reopen and reconsider an EB-2 National Interest Waiver denial for a Filipino…

The petitioner, an education professional from the Philippines with doctoral credentials and experience in school-based emergency preparedness, sought an EB-2 National Interest Waiver to establish a U.S.-based educational consulting company. SCOPS denied the petition on national interest grounds, and the AAO previously dismissed her appeal. On combined motions to reopen and reconsider, the AAO again dismissed both motions: the reopen motion failed because no new facts or evidence were submitted, and the reconsider motion failed because the petitioner did not demonstrate that the prior decision rested on an incorrect application of law or policy. The AAO upheld its earlier finding that the petitioner's teaching background and local Philippines emergency coordination experience did not establish she was well-positioned to advance a U.S.-based national consulting enterprise, and that her business plan and Model Plan lacked independent corroboration of financial feasibility and expansion plans.

What failed: 1. The petitioner's local Philippines emergency preparedness experience and classroom teaching did not translate, without more, into readiness to run a nationwide U.S. consulting business. 2. The business plan and Model Plan were not supported by independent evidence such as letters of interest from potential clients, financial commitments, or demonstrated record of success in similar consulting ventures. 3. The motion to reopen failed entirely because the petitioner merely reargued prior evidence and assertions rather than submitting new facts.

Takeaway: For EB-2 NIW petitions proposing a new consulting business, petitioners must go beyond a well-written business plan and Model Plan by providing independent corroborating evidence — such as letters of intent from prospective clients, evidence of financial backing, and a documented record of comparable prior success — to convincingly show they are well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor. On motions, introducing new facts and evidence is critical; simply rearguing the same points will not succeed.

Cases like this are frequently used by attorneys when responding to RFEs or building initial petitions. The evidence patterns that worked (or failed) here directly reflect what USCIS officers look for when evaluating EB-2-NIW criteria.