NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN022024_01B52032024-01-02 · 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 proposed to operate a U.S.-based information technology consulting business.

Field: information technology consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we affirmed the Director's finding that the Petitioner did not establish the "national importance" of his proposed U.S. information technology consulting business”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not specify any evidence that we allegedly misanalysed”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,788coded 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 motion decision reviewing only whether the motion to reopen/reconsider met procedural requirements, not a fresh merits analysis; the Petitioner raised a Fourth Amendment claim (alleging unconstitutional search/seizure related to RFE notice) that the AAO rejected as inapplicable and unexplained.

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)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles