NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC062023_05B52032023-12-06 · 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 bilingual content analyst working as an online interpreter, sought to provide interpretation and language services to improve communications for businesses facing language barriers.

Field: bilingual content analysis / interpretation services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we concluded the Petitioner did not show how her endeavor would have broader implications in the field or would have significant potential to employ U.S . workers or other substantial positive economic effects.”
“the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her particular services as an online interpreter would have broader implications for our country rather than limited to the customers she would prospectively serve over the phone.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “Disagreeing with our conclusions without showing how we erred as a matter of law or pointing to policy or precedent that contradicts our analysis of the evidence is not a ground to reconsider our decision.”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “For the same reasons discussed in our prior decision, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how her particular services as an online interpreter would have broader implications for our country.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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 combined motion to reopen and reconsider following a prior AAO dismissal of the appeal; AAO reiterated that prong 1's national importance failure alone was dispositive and declined to revisit prongs 2 and 3. New evidence (a job offer letter as online interpreter) was found insufficient to change the outcome under the motion to reopen standard.

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)(ii)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer