NIW Bearings
dismissedJAN302025_05B52032025-01-30 · 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 to operate his own engineering consulting services company focusing on electrical engineering, electronics, and production processes.

Field: electrical engineering / engineering consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not establish its national importance under the Dhanasar framework”
“his company would result in broader implications beyond the benefits to any prospective clients at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the industry reports and articles emphasized the importance of the field, but did not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “did not demonstrate the national importance of the Petitioner's specific endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the new articles do not demonstrate the Petitioner's eligibility for a national interest waiver, nor do they evidence new facts”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
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

AAO reiterates that prior appeal was reserved on prongs 2 and 3 under INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- (declining to reach unnecessary alternative issues). The motion largely reargued the appeal brief with three new field-importance articles, which AAO found insufficient to constitute 'new facts' under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2), and the motion to reconsider failed for merely disagreeing with the prior decision without identifying legal or evidentiary error, 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)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer