NIW Bearings
dismissedJUL312024_10B52032024-07-31 · 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 attorney with mediation experience, sought to start a conciliation and mediation company in Florida, offering dispute resolution services to businesses, individuals, and government entities.

Field: alternative dispute resolution / mediation law · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner had not established that her proposed endeavor would have implications beyond her own company and its employees and clients to impact the field, industry, or economy more broadly”
“she did not offer corroborating evidence to demonstrate the basis for the projections and did not elucidate how they would be realized”
“the Petitioner does not point to any evidence that might show the prospective broad impact of her specific endeavor in the field of mediation and arbitration”
“she has not shown that her proposed conciliation and mediation services stand to sufficiently extend beyond her clients to affect the field of alternative dispute resolution more broadly”
“none of the letters identify or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform within her prospective endeavor in the United States”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “none of the letters identify or discuss the nature of the specific work the Petitioner will perform within her prospective endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “she did not offer corroborating evidence to demonstrate the basis for the projections and did not elucidate how they would be realized”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “neither the Petitioner's certification to serve as a mediator in Florida...are sufficient to show national importance of her specific endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “those factors alone were not sufficient to demonstrate that she was well-positioned to advance the endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the new evidence...was insufficient to demonstrate that she met the national interest waiver criteria”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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 Petitioner did not appeal the underlying Form I-140 denial itself, only the dismissal of her subsequent combined motion to reopen and reconsider; the AAO limited its review accordingly and declined to reach several of her substantive appellate arguments concerning the original denial as beyond scope.

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)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer