Accounting and tax consulting

The AAO dismissed the second combined motion to reopen and reconsider, leaving its earlier dismissal of the prior motions in place.

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

This is the second round of combined motions filed by an accounting and tax consultant whose extraordinary ability petition had already failed. The AAO dismissed the motion to reopen because it offered no new facts or documents. On reconsideration, the AAO acknowledged it had failed to recognize one new fact in the earlier motion but said the error appeared harmless, since the petitioner had not explained its relevance to this petition. Her other arguments, including that a final merits analysis was required even though she met only one criterion, did not show any misapplication of law or policy.

Decided

2026-04-29

Original decision by

Not stated

Field

Accounting and tax consulting

One-time major award

Not stated

Final merits

Not reached

Findings

Why the AAO decided this way

• The motion to reopen neither stated new facts nor contained documentary evidence, so the AAO dismissed it as not meeting applicable requirements.
• The AAO agreed that one statement in the petitioner's declaration about applying for another work visa was a new fact, but said its error appeared harmless because she had not explained the statement's relevance to this petition.
• The AAO explained that because the petitioner met only one evidentiary criterion and showed no major internationally recognized award, it did not need to make a final merits determination.
• The petitioner did not show that the prior decision applied a standard higher than preponderance of the evidence or misinterpreted the term "new facts".
• The AAO noted that visa petition proceedings are not the proper forum for admissibility determinations and concluded that the petitioner had not established it erred in declining to address her adjustment-of-status arguments.

Authorities cited

• Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)
• Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330 (BIA 2021)
• INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976)
• Matter of O-, 8 I&N Dec. 295 (BIA 1959)

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