NIW Bearings
dismissedMAR202024_08B52032024-03-20 · appeal · 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 cyber-physical system consultant, proposed to build integrated cyber-physical systems using biomarkers, cloud computing, and 5G networks to enable real-time remote monitoring of consciousness restoration in brain-injury and COVID-19 comatose patients.

Field: cyber-physical systems / telecommunications-neuroscience interface · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“the record does not reflect the Petitioner has a record of success in collaborating in neuroscience research by building cyber-physical systems”
“the Petitioner provided letters that make broad, general statements regarding his past involvement as a guest researcher”
“you did not provide sufficient evidence to support your business plan such as correspondence from prospective/potential employers, clients, or customers”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a record of success or progress in advancing his proposed endeavor, including through his business plan”
“the record does not show that the Petitioner was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research project”
“a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “letters that make broad, general statements regarding his past involvement as a guest researcher”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “you did not provide sufficient evidence to support your business plan such as correspondence from prospective/potential employers, clients, or customers”
    AAO decision text
  • funding · discounted
    “the record does not show that the Petitioner was mainly responsible for obtaining funding for the research project”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “a degree in and of itself is not a basis to determine that a person is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the record does not reflect the Petitioner has a record of success in collaborating in neuroscience research”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • motion resubmission · ignored
    “we will not consider it for the first time of appeal”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p2 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • Funding absent · p2 — no documented funding or resources behind the plan
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
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 AAO declined to consider new evidence first submitted on appeal (citing Matter of Soriano and Matter of Izummi) and expressly treated each cited deficiency as an independent, alternate basis for dismissal; it also declined to reach prong three under Bagamasbad/Matter of L-A-C- reasoning since prong two alone was dispositive.

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. 103.2(b)(12)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(2)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer