NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR182024_05B52032024-04-18 · combined · Texas Service Center

This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.

The Petitioner, a financial advisor, initially proposed an endeavor that he later sought to change via an RFE-submitted business plan describing starting his own business, which the AAO found did not correspond to the endeavor described in the initial filing.

Field: financial advisory · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he had not demonstrated its national importance”
“industry demand does not, by itself, demonstrate the national importance of the endeavor”
“the business plan...amounted to a material change to the petition because it did not correspond to the proposed endeavor described in the initial filing”
“did not show it would have "national or even global implications within a particular field," or "significant potential to employ U.S. workers or ha[ve] other substantial positive economic effects."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “amounted to a material change to the petition because it did not correspond to the proposed endeavor described in the initial filing”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “industry demand does not, by itself, demonstrate the national importance of the endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “does not identify any arguments we purportedly did not evaluate”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
1,312coded decisions carry the failure named in this record. A placement shows where your profile sits among them, not what it predicts.See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →

Notable

The AAO's prior appellate decision found the Petitioner's RFE-submitted business plan constituted an impermissible material change from the initially filed endeavor, and it declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 (Dhanasar) as unnecessary under Bagamasbad/Matter of L-A-C-. On motion, the Petitioner submitted no new evidence and only generally alleged error without addressing the material-change or national-importance findings, so the AAO dismissed both the motion to reopen and to reconsider citing Matter of O-S-G-'s prohibition on using motions to merely re-argue prior briefs.

Authorities this decision leans on

From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.

  • 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer