Computer science
The AAO dismissed the combined motions to reopen and reconsider because the new evidence did not establish national importance and the petitioner did not identify any legal or policy error in the earlier appellate decision.
Summarized by AI. Summaries on this site are written by AI and can contain errors. Always read the full decision on uscis.gov before relying on anything here. If a summary differs from the official decision, the official decision controls.
Summary
A computer scientist who had lost an EB-2 national interest waiver appeal came back with combined motions to reopen and reconsider. The earlier appellate ruling had found his proposed endeavor insufficiently explained and found no demonstration of national importance, even though substantial merit was accepted. The motion supplied a research proposal he had once written for a job application, which the AAO said did not sufficiently demonstrate broader impact, job creation or economic benefit. Beyond voicing disagreement and saying he had described his work in enough detail, he identified no misapplied law or policy, so the AAO dismissed both motions.
Findings
| Criterion / prong | AAO finding | From the decision |
|---|---|---|
| Prong 1: Substantial merit and national importance | Not met | but did not demonstrate that the potential prospective impact of the endeavor rises to the level of national importance |
| Prong 2: Well positioned to advance the endeavor | Not addressed | |
| Prong 3: Balance favors waiving the job offer | Not addressed |
Why the AAO decided this way
- The earlier appellate decision agreed with the Director that the petitioner had not sufficiently explained his proposed endeavor and had materially changed it by adding a consulting company in response to the request for evidence.
- That decision found substantial merit but not national importance, because he had not shown a broader impact on the field, significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial economic effects.
- On the motion to reopen, a research proposal previously written to apply for employment and the accompanying email did not establish national importance, as he had not sufficiently demonstrated broader impact, job creation or economic effects.
- On the motion to reconsider, he insisted the case was wrongly decided and that he had given adequate detail, but did not identify any instance where the AAO misapplied law or USCIS policy.
Authorities cited
- Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
- Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016)
- Matter of Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464 (BIA 1992)
Read the full decision on uscis.gov ↗
Please describe the error only. Do not send personal or case information. Anything you send will not be treated as confidential, and an error report does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Report an error in this summary