NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN092024_02B52032024-01-09 · 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, an actuary, proposed to establish an insurance consulting firm in the United States.

Field: actuarial science / insurance consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

How the evidence was treated

  • motion resubmission · discounted
    The Petitioner's motion to reopen neither states new facts nor includes documentary evidence.
    AAO decision text

This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds

Notable

This is a motion decision following an earlier AAO dismissal (In Re: 27415535) that found national importance unmet; the AAO here does not re-analyze the Dhanasar prongs substantively but denies the motion to reopen for lack of new facts/evidence and the motion to reconsider for failing to identify legal or factual error. The Petitioner raised an unusual Fourth Amendment 'search and seizure' constitutional claim regarding an RFE response, which the AAO rejected as unsupported by the record.

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)
  • Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles