Human Resources Specialist

The motion to reconsider was dismissed because the Petitioner did not establish that the previous AAO decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy at the time it was issued. The Petitioner attempted to introduce new evidence and re-adjudicate the initial petition and prior decisions, which is not the proper basis for a motion to reconsider.

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 Petitioner did not demonstrate five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience as required for an advanced degree professional. Discrepancies in employment history, particularly regarding a consultant role, were not resolved with independent, objective evidence. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not sufficiently explain the unavailability of primary or secondary employment evidence beyond affidavits, despite the company having other employees and upper management.

The motions to reopen and reconsider were dismissed because the Petitioner failed to meet the regulatory requirements. For the motion to reopen, no new facts supported by documentary evidence were presented that were material to the issues raised on motion and not previously submitted. For the motion to reconsider, 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 of that decision.

The document does not provide details regarding the specific nature of the petitioner's proposed work, as it focuses on the procedural dismissal of a fourth motion to reopen and reconsider.