This appeal was not successful at this stage
The AAO dismissed the third motion to reconsider because the Petitioner again failed to show that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, instead resubmitting the same arguments and evidence without identifying specific legal or policy errors.
3 more criteria would trigger a full merits review.
An artist representative and production company filed an I-140 petition seeking O-1B classification for an actress. After the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, the AAO dismissed the appeal and two subsequent motions to reconsider. On the third motion, the Petitioner again submitted essentially the same arguments and evidence without demonstrating how the AAO had incorrectly applied law or policy in its prior decision. Because the regulatory standard for a motion to reconsider requires identification of specific legal or policy errors rather than general disagreement, the AAO dismissed the motion without reaching the merits of the O-1B criteria.
What failed: The Petitioner repeatedly submitted the same substantive arguments and evidence without ever identifying specific legal or policy errors in the AAO's prior decisions, which is the required showing for a motion to reconsider. Simply disagreeing with conclusions or restating previously evaluated evidence does not meet the standard under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(3).
Takeaway: A motion to reconsider must specifically identify where the prior decision incorrectly applied law or policy; resubmitting the same evidence and arguments will result in dismissal. Petitioners should carefully distinguish new legal arguments from mere disagreement with prior findings.
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 O-1B criteria.
● Evidence that moved the needle
- See summary above for details.
● Evidence that wasn't enough alone
- The Petitioner repeatedly submitted the same substantive arguments and evidence without ever identifying specific legal or policy errors in the AAO's prior decisions, which is the required showing for a motion to reconsider
- Simply disagreeing with conclusions or restating previously evaluated evidence does not meet the standard under 8 C.F.R
Completed
I-140 filed
Actress represented by an artist representative and production company
Completed
Director — Denied
Initial decision: Denied.
Completed
Appeal to the AAO
Petitioner appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office for de novo review.
2022-10-06
AAO decision — Dismissed
The AAO dismissed the third motion to reconsider because the Petitioner again failed to show that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, instead resubmitting the same arguments and evidence without identifying specific legal or policy errors.
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.