NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC112024_02B52032024-12-11 · combined · 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.

The Petitioner sought to continue employment as the general manager of a private country club, relying on his media-arts education and prior work experience.

Field: general management (private country club); educational background in media arts · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Prior decisions found insufficient evidence of five years of progressive experience in media arts because employment letters lacked required job-duty descriptions; on this motion, the AAO assumed arguendo the new letters cured that defect but did not need to resolve the issue because the Dhanasar prongs independently failed.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“the record does not sufficiently link the field of the Petitioner's educational credential in media arts with the performance of general management duties for corporations”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“simply having education, skills, and/or knowledge in isolation do not place a petitioner in a position to advance their proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • resume experience · discounted
    “Even assuming arguendo that the Petitioner's evidence submitted on this second motion contains sufficient detail to establish that he accumulated five years of progressive experience in his field”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “the record does not sufficiently link the field of the Petitioner's educational credential in media arts with the performance of general management duties for corporations”
    AAO decision text
  • media · ignored
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not provide any new evidence or arguments which overcome our prior determination, but instead, he reiterates his prior arguments”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
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 second combined motion to reopen and reconsider following a prior appeal dismissal and a prior motion dismissal on the same NIW petition; the AAO expressly declined to resolve the threshold advanced-degree experience question, resolving the case instead on the unrebutted Dhanasar prong failures, treating each prong as an independent ground of eligibility.

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)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
  • Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer