NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV042024_08B52032024-11-04 · combined · 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 to establish and operate his own IT consulting firm in the United States providing cybersecurity services, IT governance frameworks, and project management to U.S. businesses.

Field: information technology consulting / cybersecurity · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we similarly concluded the Petitioner had not established the national importance of his proposed endeavor and thereby had not established his eligibility for a national interest waiver”
“We will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor of working for I I and its affiliated entities on digital transformation for the United States agricultural sector”
“The Petitioner does not provide new facts or evidence describing the national importance of his proposed endeavor, as described in his initial filing, of running an IT consulting firm in the United States”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • certification membership · discounted
    “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and abilities relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “The Petitioner does not provide new facts or evidence describing the national importance of his proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • other · ignored
    “We will not consider the Petitioner's materially changed proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
76coded 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 attempted on combined motions to substitute a materially different proposed endeavor (digital transformation for an agricultural-sector employer) for the originally filed IT consulting firm endeavor; the AAO refused to consider this change under Katigbak/Izummi's material-change bar, and separately found no new facts or legal error offered as to the originally filed endeavor's national importance, so both the motion to reopen and motion to reconsider were dismissed.

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)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(12)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
  • 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 Coelho
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer