Administrative Services Manager

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. Specifically, the Petitioner's claim that a high school diploma plus 30 years of work experience qualifies as an advanced degree was rejected, as agency policy requires at least a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent. The 'three-for-one' rule cited by the Petitioner's evaluator was found to be inapplicable to immigrant employment petitions. Additionally, the Petitioner's claim of exceptional ability was not adequately raised or supported in the initial petition or appeal, making it an insufficient basis for reconsideration.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish eligibility under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework. The motion to reopen was dismissed as no new facts supported by documentary evidence were presented. The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy, or that the decision was incorrect based on the evidence in the record at the time.

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to establish that the prior decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy. The AAO found that the Petitioner did not demonstrate her proposed endeavor is of national importance under Dhanasar's first prong, and the same evidence and assertions did not warrant reconsideration.

The petitioner is a legal administrator seeking to work in the United States. The specific details of the endeavor's methodologies were not established as having national importance.