NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV142024_05B52032024-11-14 · 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 construction and building inspector, sought to operate a proposed business in his field, claiming it would have a beneficial economic impact.

Field: construction and building inspection · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    generally reiterated the benefits of the Petitioner's profession, his qualifications, and the claimed economic impact of his proposed business, but did not provide any new evidence or arguments
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    did not provide any new evidence or arguments capable of overcoming the Director's determination
    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

This decision addresses only procedural timeliness of a third combined motion to reopen/reconsider, not the substantive NIW merits. The Petitioner argued a British 'mailbox rule' case (Adams v. Lindsell, 1818) and contract-law theories to excuse late filing, which the AAO rejected as having no precedential value over U.S. law and as inapplicable since a Form I-290B is not a contract. The AAO also rejected the Petitioner's speculative weather-delay argument for lack of evidence that any such event occurred in his case.

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)(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)

Cases in adjacent profiles