NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR122025_03B52032025-03-12 · 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 decision does not substantively describe the Petitioner's proposed endeavor; the case concerns a procedural defect (an invalid signature on the Form I-140) and a subsequent ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, not the merits of the NIW petition.

Field: dentistry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

How the evidence was treated

  • motion resubmission · discounted
    the Petitioner has not substantially complied with Lozada requirements
    AAO decision text

This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds

Notable

This decision does not reach the substantive NIW prongs at all. It is a second combined motion arising from a prior dismissal for failure to personally sign the Form I-140 under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(a)(2); the Petitioner raised an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim regarding her prior law firm's signature instructions, which the AAO rejected for failing to substantially comply with the Lozada framework (no affidavit, no notice to prior counsel, no disciplinary complaint). Both the motion to reopen and motion to reconsider were dismissed on procedural grounds unrelated to NIW merits.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles