This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the third motion to reconsider because the petitioner failed to identify a specific error of law or policy in the immediately prior motion decision. The petitioner largely repeated prior arguments and pointed to evidence already reviewed, which does not meet the standard for a motion to reconsider.
A special needs elementary school educator filed an EB-2 National Interest Waiver petition that was denied by the Nebraska Service Center Director for failing to show national importance under the Dhanasar framework. After the AAO dismissed her appeal and two prior motions, she filed a third motion to reconsider, arguing the AAO misapplied the Dhanasar framework and the preponderance of the evidence standard. The AAO dismissed the motion, finding the petitioner again broadly disagreed with prior conclusions rather than identifying a specific error of law or policy as required by 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3). Evidence the petitioner claimed was 'new'—including expert opinions and statistical data—was found to be re-submissions of materials already in the record and previously considered.
What failed: The petitioner repeatedly resubmitted the same evidence (personal statement, articles, expert opinion letters, statistical data) without demonstrating how prior decisions misapplied the law or policy. Broadly disagreeing with the AAO's conclusions does not satisfy the legal standard for a motion to reconsider. The petitioner also failed to establish national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong across multiple adjudications.
Takeaway: A motion to reconsider requires pinpointing a specific legal or policy error in the immediately prior decision—not restating prior arguments or re-submitting already-reviewed evidence. Petitioners seeking reconsideration must clearly identify which regulation, precedent, or binding policy was misapplied and explain precisely how.
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.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner repeatedly resubmitted the same evidence (personal statement, articles, expert opinion letters, statistical data) without demonstrating how prior decisions misapplied the law or policy
- Broadly disagreeing with the AAO's conclusions does not satisfy the legal standard for a motion to reconsider
- The petitioner also failed to establish national importance of her proposed endeavor under the first Dhanasar prong across multiple adjudications.
Petitioner's personal statement re-submitted without new arguments
Articles and reports already in the record from the initial petition
Expert opinion letters previously submitted and already considered
Statistical data claimed as 'new' but found to be re-submissions of prior evidence
Completed
I-140 filed
Special needs educator at an elementary school
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2025-01-07
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the third motion to reconsider because the petitioner failed to identify a specific error of law or policy in the immediately prior motion decision. The petitioner largely repeated prior arguments and pointed to evidence already reviewed, which does not meet the standard for a motion to reconsider.
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.
Find this useful? A coffee helps keep Case Reviewer free and ad-free.
Buy me a coffee