NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY132024_05B52032024-05-13 · appeal · 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 clearly describe the proposed endeavor; the AAO found the Petitioner's inconsistent representations obscured its nature entirely.

Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner did not establish exceptional ability by meeting at least three of the six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii); categorical ineligibility for EB-2 classification made the national interest waiver analysis unnecessary.

How the evidence was treated

  • motion resubmission · discounted
    The Petitioner's appeal is essentially a reiteration of the documentation and argument they previously submitted with their RFE response.
    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

AAO adopted and affirmed the Director's decision under Matter of Burbano/appellate-adoption case law, citing multiple circuit court decisions (Prado-Gonzalez, Giday, Chen) endorsing the practice. The threshold exceptional-ability failure was dispositive, and the AAO explicitly declined to reach the NIW prongs, stating consideration of the waiver 'is not indicated' where a petitioner is categorically ineligible for EB-2 classification. The decision also notes the Petitioner obscured the nature of their proposed endeavor through inconsistent representations, though this is framed as part of the threshold/EB-2 categorical failure rather than a distinct prong 1 finding.

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. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
  • Flores v. Garland

Cases in adjacent profiles