NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC012021_02B52032021-12-01 · motion_reconsider · Nebraska 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.

A PhD engineering student and part-time graduate research assistant proposed to continue work in aerospace/engineering research related to his graduate studies with an industry consortium.

Field: aerospace/mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importanceestablished

“we dismissed the subsequent appeal, agreeing that the Petitioner met the first prong of the analytical framework”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the funding information he submitted as evidence that he is well positioned to advance his endeavor did not establish that he, as opposed to the head of his laboratory for example, was mainly responsible for obtaining, or essential or critical to receiving, the referenced funding.”
“not every individual who has performed original research will be found to be well positioned to advance his proposed endeavor.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “he has not established that we did not give them proper consideration.”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “did not establish that he... was mainly responsible for obtaining, or essential or critical to receiving, the referenced funding.”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not established on motion that our decision was based on an incorrect application of law or policy.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
214coded 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

This is a motion to reconsider the AAO's own prior appellate decision (not the original denial); the AAO expressly limits the scope of review under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i) to its own prior decision and declines to revisit prong 3 or the underlying denial, framing prong 2 failure as dispositive.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • Matter of E-M-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show he, rather than his lab head, was primarily responsible for or essential to the funding/research relied upon to establish he was well positioned to advance the endeavor.

Transferable lesson

Show personal, primary responsibility for funding, research leadership, or outcomes—not just participation in a funded lab—to satisfy prong 2's 'well positioned' standard.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer