NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY302025_01B52032025-05-30 · motion_reconsider

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 to work as a tourism and hospitality management specialist in the United States, aiming to enhance industry practices through innovative solutions.

Field: tourism and hospitality management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not show through supporting documentation how her endeavor sufficiently extends beyond her prospective employers or clients to impact the field or the U.S. economy more broadly at a level commensurate with national importance”
“they did not specifically address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor could have national implications within the field of hospitality, significant potential to employ U.S. workers or other substantial positive economic effects”
“the evidence did not establish any specific innovation connected with the proposed endeavor that would be distinguishable from current practices within the related fields”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they did not specifically address how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor could have national implications within the field of hospitality”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the submitted articles and reports did not address the specific endeavor the Petitioner proposed to undertake”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner's motion restates the arguments and documents she believes support her endeavor's national importance”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
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 a second motion to reconsider following a prior dismissed appeal and first motion to reconsider; the AAO's review is limited to whether its own prior decision contained legal error, and it found the Petitioner merely reiterated prior arguments without showing such error.

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)(ii)
  • 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