NIW Bearings
dismissedFEB252025_01B52032025-02-25 · 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 compliance manager, proposed an endeavor related to financial-crime/anti-money-laundering compliance intended to benefit small businesses in the Florida economy.

Field: compliance / anti-money laundering (financial crime prevention) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the determination of national importance focuses on the specific endeavor a Petitioner proposes to undertake, rather than the specific area or field”
“she similarly does not provide corroborating evidence of her claims that her specific endeavor would contribute to the local economy on a scale reflecting national importance”
“we concluded that the Petitioner had not provided information or an explanation to establish her own proposed endeavor would have substantial positive effects in that environment”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “The Petitioner's submissions on motion, most of which were previously a part of the record, do not state new facts and therefore do not constitute "new facts"”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the submitted articles do not mention the Petitioner, her company, or otherwise speak to the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “she similarly does not provide corroborating evidence of her claims that her specific endeavor would contribute to the local economy on a scale reflecting national importance”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • 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 the Petitioner's second combined motion to reopen and reconsider following a prior appeal dismissal and a prior combined motion dismissal, all turning on the same unresolved national-importance issue; the AAO never reached prongs 2 or 3 across any of the proceedings and repeatedly emphasized the limited scope of motion review to the immediately prior decision.

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)(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)
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer