NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC072023_03B52032023-12-07 · 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 sought to create a company pursuing two lines of business: international trade consulting between the U.S. and Brazil, and hospital consulting on patient blood management strategies.

Field: financial/business consulting and hospital/patient blood management consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“We concluded that the evidence did not establish that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have broader implications, but would instead primarily benefit the business' employees and clients”
“they do not show the potential broader implications of his work under the first prong”
“it also does not serve to show that the impact of the proposed endeavor would extend beyond the Petitioner's company's employees, clients and business partners to have a broader impact on the field of financial consulting”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“his SABM membership and presentation support to some extent his positioning to advance his proposed endeavor under the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • certification membership · discounted
    “they do not show the potential broader implications of his work under the first prong”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “these facts or events occurred more than two years after the petition was filed, they do not help to establish the Petitioner's eligibility”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “even if the letter from the Brazilian company did provide details about the proposed collaboration, which it does not”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • motion resubmission · p1 — the filing repeats the prior record rather than meeting the motion standard
746coded 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

Petitioner raised an inapposite Fourth Amendment argument (unreasonable searches and seizures) which AAO rejected as irrelevant to the motion to reconsider standard; evidence submitted on motion post-dated filing by over two years and was rejected on that basis alone, independent of its substantive insufficiency.

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. 103.5
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of O-S-G-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

New evidence postdated filing by two years and, even if considered, only supported petitioner's personal positioning, not the endeavor's broader national importance beyond his own business.

Transferable lesson

Motion evidence must predate filing and directly demonstrate the endeavor's broader field/national impact, not merely the petitioner's credentials or activities.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic · public_health

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer