This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen and motion to reconsider because neither contained genuinely new facts or documentary evidence, and neither demonstrated that the prior decision misapplied law or policy.
2 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
This is a late-stage motion proceeding in which an accounting and tax consultant sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. SCOPS had originally denied the petition after finding she met only one of the required three evidentiary criteria. After six prior combined motions and an AAO appeal were dismissed, the petitioner filed a seventh combined motion, submitting a personal letter and a 2018 tax registration certificate already in the record, neither of which constituted new facts. The AAO also rejected her adjustment of status argument as outside its jurisdiction. Both motions were dismissed for failure to meet applicable procedural requirements.
What failed: The petitioner's motion to reopen failed because she submitted no genuinely new facts or documentary evidence — her letter repeated prior claims and the tax certificate had already been filed. Her motion to reconsider failed because she did not identify any specific legal or factual error in the AAO's prior decision. Her adjustment of status argument was irrelevant to the motion standards and outside the AAO's jurisdiction.
Takeaway: Motions to reopen must include truly new facts and new documentary evidence not previously in the record, while motions to reconsider must pinpoint a specific legal or policy error in the prior decision. Resubmitting previously filed documents or raising unrelated immigration arguments will not satisfy these requirements.
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-1A criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The petitioner's motion to reopen failed because she submitted no genuinely new facts or documentary evidence — her letter repeated prior claims and the tax certificate had already been filed
- Her motion to reconsider failed because she did not identify any specific legal or factual error in the AAO's prior decision
- Her adjustment of status argument was irrelevant to the motion standards and outside the AAO's jurisdiction.
Completed
I-140 filed
Accounting and tax consultant who operates a business in the United States
Completed
SCOPS — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2026-01-23
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen and motion to reconsider because neither contained genuinely new facts or documentary evidence, and neither demonstrated that the prior decision misapplied law or policy.
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.