NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY042023_03B52032023-05-04 · 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 Beneficiary is president of a Texas manufacturing business that produces cleaning products, including hand sanitizer and soap, and claimed his endeavor had national importance based on economic benefits and, later, public health benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Field: manufacturing of cleaning products (hand sanitizer, soap, dry cleaning agents) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we determined that the Petitioner did not establish that the Beneficiary's proposed endeavor has national importance under the first prong of the Dhanasar analytical framework.”
“the Director denied the petition for a second time due to insufficiency of evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's claims ofjob creation and other economic benefits.”
“The Petitioner's activities during 2020 cannot retroactively establish eligibility as of the Petitioner's August 2018 filing date.”
“the Petitioner did not assert that sanitation and hygiene lent national importance to its endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the Director denied the petition for a second time due to insufficiency of evidence demonstrating the Petitioner's claims of job creation and other economic benefits.”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “This motion includes a list of the Petitioner's cleaning products and an invoice for hand soap and sanitizer from 2017, both of which were submitted with the initial petition.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “The Petitioner's activities during 2020 cannot retroactively establish eligibility as of the Petitioner's August 2018 filing date.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • NEW evidence postdates filing · p1
  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
3coded 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 decision addresses a motion to reconsider the AAO's own prior appellate dismissal, not the underlying denial. The AAO dismissed the motion on procedural grounds, finding the Petitioner merely disagreed with the AAO's factual conclusions (regarding whether public-health/pandemic evidence could establish national importance as of the 2018 filing date) without identifying any specific legal or policy error, citing Matter of O-S-G- for the principle that a motion to reconsider cannot simply reargue the same brief.

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)(1)(i)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of O-S-G-
  • Poursina v. USCIS
  • Section 291 of the Act

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer