NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN112024_05B52032024-06-11 · 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, a foreign trade specialist, proposed to provide consulting services to small and medium sized import-export businesses.

Field: foreign trade / import-export consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we determined that the Petitioner had not established that his endeavor stood to sufficiently extend beyond his employees and clients such that its impact would be at a level commensurate with national importance”
“We highlighted that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor, as documented, did not have the potential to employ a significant number of U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial positive economic effects”
“We also determined that the Petitioner did not establish, through sufficient probative evidence, that his endeavor would have broader implications in his field that would resonate on a national level”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “A petitioner cannot meet the requirements of a motion to reconsider by making general, unsupported assertions about the prior decision.”
    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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO found the Petitioner's motion relied on an inapplicable precedent (Matter of Hashmi, concerning motions to continue removal proceedings) and made only general, unsupported assertions rather than identifying specific legal or factual errors, so the motion was dismissed without reaching prongs 2 or 3.

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-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer