NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN252024_09B52032024-01-25 · combined · Nebraska 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 an advanced-degree professional; on motion he pointed to a post-filing job offer as a Financial Reporting Analyst maintaining receivable accounts and analyzing bookings/collections as evidence of national importance.

Field: financial/accounting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; this was not disputed on motion.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the supplemental documentation does not overcome the Director's determination that the Petitioner had not demonstrated the national importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework”
“his work as a Financial Reporting Analyst is in the national interest”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “The Petitioner received the aforementioned job offer after the Form 1-140 petition's filing date.”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not offered new evidence or facts on motion to overcome the stated grounds for dismissal in our appellate decision”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • 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
746coded 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 case arises from a combined motion to reopen/reconsider a prior summary dismissal of the appeal, not a merits appeal itself. The Petitioner raised an implicit ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim (prior counsel misdirected the supplemental brief to the Vermont Service Center instead of the AAO) but failed to satisfy Matter of Lozada requirements. The AAO also rejected new evidence (a post-filing job offer) because eligibility must be shown as of the filing date under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1),(12).

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. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(i)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer