NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY062025_02B52032025-05-06 · motion_reopen · 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 an endeavor related to education/instructional work, which she argued aligns with national educational and workforce development priorities.

Field: educational instruction and library occupations · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we acknowledged the articles submitted but concluded that they did not focus on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • media · discounted
    “did not focus on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “did not focus on the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not provided new facts to establish that we erred in dismissing the prior motion”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
1,581coded 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 is the fifth motion filed after the appeal and four prior motions were all dismissed. The AAO's analysis is purely procedural under the motion-to-reopen standard, not a fresh merits review of the NIW prongs; the underlying prong 1 finding (endeavor not specific) is carried forward from prior decisions rather than newly analyzed here.

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
  • Matter of Coelho

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

This was procedural: on a fifth motion to reopen, petitioner failed to present new facts under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2) showing AAO erred in finding her evidence untethered to her specific proposed endeavor.

Transferable lesson

Motions to reopen must supply genuinely new, endeavor-specific facts; recycling general field evidence without connecting it to the petitioner's own undertaking will not succeed.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

field_advancement · economic_growth_generic · other

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer