This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner's explanation for the untimely filing of an earlier motion — that former counsel withdrew representation days before the deadline and the motion was initially mailed to an incorrect address — was found insufficient to excuse the late filing as a matter of discretion.
A cell phone retailer petitioned to permanently employ a beneficiary as COO under the EB-1C multinational executive/manager classification. After USCIS revoked the petition's approval, the AAO upheld the revocation, and the Petitioner filed multiple subsequent motions. The current motion to reconsider argued that a prior motion was filed late due to counsel's withdrawal and a mailing error. The AAO found that prior decisions had clearly stated correct filing instructions, and the Petitioner's explanation did not meet the legal standard of delay 'reasonable and beyond its control.' Because the motion also attempted to re-litigate issues from earlier stages of the proceeding — which is outside the scope of a motion limited to the latest decision — the AAO dismissed the motion and the revocation of the petition's approval stands.
What failed: The Petitioner could not demonstrate that the prior AAO decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, which is the required standard for a motion to reconsider. The explanation for the untimely filing — counsel withdrawal and mailing to an outdated address — was insufficient because AAO decisions contained clear filing instructions. Attempts to challenge earlier decisions in the proceeding were outside the proper scope of the current motion.
Takeaway: When filing motions pro se after counsel withdraws, petitioners must carefully follow filing instructions provided in prior AAO decisions, as procedural errors like mailing to incorrect addresses are unlikely to be excused even if made in good faith. A motion to reconsider must specifically identify an incorrect application of law or policy in the immediately preceding decision — it cannot reach back to challenge earlier decisions.
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-1C criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Petitioner could not demonstrate that the prior AAO decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, which is the required standard for a motion to reconsider
- The explanation for the untimely filing — counsel withdrawal and mailing to an outdated address — was insufficient because AAO decisions contained clear filing instructions
- Attempts to challenge earlier decisions in the proceeding were outside the proper scope of the current motion.
Completed
I-140 filed
Chief Operating Officer (COO) of a cell phone retail company
Completed
SCOPS — Revoked (approval revoked on notice)
Initial decision: Revoked (approval revoked on notice).
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-02-12
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the motion to reconsider because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The Petitioner's explanation for the untimely filing of an earlier motion — that former counsel withdrew representation days before the deadline and the motion was initially mailed to an incorrect address — was found insufficient to excuse the late filing as a matter of discretion.
If you're appealing a similar decision, I-290B must be filed within 30 days of personal service of the denial, or 33 days if mailed.