NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB072023_01B52032023-02-07 · motion_reconsider · 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 manager, proposed to provide financial and business administration consulting services to a wide array of businesses simultaneously, with a later assertion of involvement in COVID-19 medical supply distribution.

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

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The importance of a given field or industry does not establish the impmiance of an individual petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“The Petitioner did not substantiate the assertion that her work would create benefits beyond her prospective employer, such as through job creation”
“The Petitioner changed her proposed endeavor after the filing date, for instance referring to the distribution of medical products in response to the COVID-19 pandemic”
“the Petitioner did not provide enough details to show "substantial positive economic effects" on a level sufficient to show national importance”
“the letter does not elaborate on how the Petitioner would be a 'great asset' or provide any details in order to establish substantial positive economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letter does not elaborate on how the Petitioner would be a 'great asset' or provide any details in order to establish substantial positive economic effects”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not provide enough details to show "substantial positive economic effects" on a level sufficient to show national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “The Petitioner has not explained how the letters discussed above show that our appellate decision was incorrect at the time we issued it.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • 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

The AAO notes that a letter from an employer appeared to have been drafted primarily to help the Petitioner obtain a COVID-19 vaccination rather than to support the NIW claim, citing 'Updated COVID-19 Vaccine Allocation Guidelines' issued by the California Department of Public Health.

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)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • INA 203(b)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer