NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN042024_05B52032024-01-04 · 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 an NIW as a business owner/entrepreneur, projecting future employment and revenue through her company, but did not show the endeavor's impact extending beyond her own firm and clientele.

Field: unspecified (company with clientele; employment/revenue projections) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director and AAO agreed Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; only the waiver (national interest) prong was at issue.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner had not shown that her proposed endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her company or its clientele to impact the industry or the field more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the Petitioner had not demonstrated that her claimed employment and revenue projections, even if credible, reflect significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “even if credible, reflect significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “makes vague and general assertions that USCIS disregarded unspecified evidence”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • 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

Petitioner argued USCIS's failure to consider evidence violated the Fourth Amendment; AAO rejected this as irrelevant to the grounds of the prior dismissal, citing Matter of O-S-G- on motions to reconsider not being a vehicle for unrelated legal arguments.

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)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer