NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN302025_02B52032025-01-30 · motion_reconsider · 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, CEO of a digital marketing business, proposed to continue operating that business to help small and medium-sized businesses improve their marketing and grow.

Field: digital marketing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The Forbes article is a general reference that does not address the Petitioner's endeavor or how a similar business to the Petitioner's would reach national importance”
“Besides unsubstantiated assertions, Professor does not specify how exactly these outcomes will be achieved.”
“Yet, the Petitioner's abilities go to the second prong of Dhanasar regarding how well-positioned he is to advance his endeavor and not to whether the endeavor is of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “does not explain how the Petitioner's endeavor has national or even global implications”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “We will not consider new facts or evidence in a motion to reconsider.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “The Forbes article is a general reference that does not address the Petitioner's endeavor”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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 a motion to reconsider following a prior AAO appellate dismissal on prong 1; the AAO repeatedly emphasized that new letters, expert opinions, and articles submitted on motion could not be considered because a motion to reconsider is limited to the existing record, but nonetheless analyzed them 'even if' considered and found them insufficient, calling the motion essentially a rehash of the appellate brief citing Matter of O-S-G-.

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)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer