NIW Bearings
dismissedJUN282024_04B52032024-06-28 · appeal · 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 proposed to work as a legal consultant in the United States, focusing on social assistance, human rights, civil and public law, and counseling municipalities.

Field: legal consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found, and it was undisputed, that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would stand to sufficiently extend beyond his future clients and employer( s) to impact the legal industry more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“a national shortage of workers in the legal field is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's endeavor”
“without evidence regarding any projected U.S. economic impact or job creation attributable to his future work, the record did not sufficiently demonstrate benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy”
“the authors of the provided recommendation letters praised the Petitioner's personal and professional achievements and qualifications, they did not provide persuasive detail concerning the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner repeats verbatim his arguments regarding the national importance of his proposed endeavor from his RFE response without explaining why we should find these claims any more persuasive”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they did not provide persuasive detail concerning the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “he does not provide any additional evidence and does not specifically identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
  • motion resubmission · p1 — the filing repeats the prior record rather than meeting the motion standard
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
2,589coded 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 AAO emphasized that the Petitioner's appeal brief repeated verbatim his RFE response arguments without identifying any error in the Director's decision, which alone constituted grounds for dismissal under 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(1)(v).

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. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Chen v. INS
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer