NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY122023_03B52032023-05-12 · 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 Petitioner, a civil engineer, proposed to operate a newly created construction/development company using existing computer technology and social media tools to improve construction and development practices.

Field: civil engineering / construction · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“it does not describe the ways in which her endeavor or her company will create and deploy innovations that will have broader implications for the construction industry”
“it does not demonstrate that these practices would impact the field beyond the company and its clients”
“does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's business will have an impact on the construction industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance”
“the record does not indicate that the location of the business and its proposed operations is an economically depressed area”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's business will have an impact on the construction industry or the U.S. economy at a level commensurate with national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “The Petitioner makes vague and general assertions that we disregarded evidence in the record, but the Petitioner does not identify any specific documents”
    AAO decision text
  • other · ignored

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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 Petitioner's motion incorrectly invoked the Fourth Amendment (footnote notes she likely meant the Fifth Amendment's due process clause); the AAO limited review strictly to its own prior January 2023 appellate decision, not the original service center denial, and dismissed the motion for failing to identify any legal or policy error rather than re-deciding the 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)(i)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer