NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY312022_04B52032022-05-31 · combined · Nebraska 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 general and operations professional, proposed to run a company in the United States that he asserted would employ U.S. workers, seeking a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement.

Field: general and operations management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

the record did not establish that the proposed endeavor has national importance
he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where they will operate is economically depressed
he would employ a significant population of workers in that area

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • motion resubmission · discounted
    Reasserting previously stated facts or resubmitting previously provided evidence does not constitute "new facts."
    AAO decision text
  • other · ignored
    None of these documents are documentary evidence supporting a new fact.
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Local, not national scope · p1impact confined to clients / a region
2,501coded 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 combined motion decision reviewing a prior AAO appellate dismissal; the AAO's analysis focuses heavily on procedural motion standards (new facts vs. reargument) and clarifies that the Petitioner's arguments about record of success and job-offer waiver benefit relate to prongs 2 and 3, not the dispositive prong 1 national-importance issue. The Petitioner's misplaced reliance on 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(8) as requiring an RFE was rejected.

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)(8)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles