NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR122021_06B52032021-03-12 · combined · Nebraska 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 historical architect, proposed to continue work restoring and preserving government and religious buildings, including consulting on remodeling and cultural-element design for community centers.

Field: historic architecture / cultural preservation consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“The existence of federal statutes (such as the NHPA) and other U.S. government programs relating to assisting... does not automatically render the work of an individual architect or preservationist nationally important under the Dhanasar framework.”
“Although evidence of the Petitioner's past work is material to the second Dhanasar prong, it does not address the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner has not presented on motion a new fact that may establish eligibility under the first Dhanasar prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the event described by [him] occurred after the petition filing date in 2017-and, moreover, after the Director's initial decision in 2018”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not elaborate on how the photographs demonstrate that the proposed endeavor is of national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “Neither list provides the dates on which the Petitioner generated work for artists, artisans, and manufacturers, or made cultural contributions.”
    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
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

The decision turns almost entirely on motion procedure: the AAO distinguishes 'new facts' (required for reopening) from previously submitted or post-filing evidence, and rejects the petitioner's statutory argument (citing the National Historic Preservation Act) that federal legislation about a field automatically establishes national importance of the specific endeavor.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer