NIW Bearings
dismissedNOV152024_04B52032024-11-15 · motion_reconsider · 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, a financial manager and entrepreneur, proposed to operate a company providing financial consulting services aimed at minimizing corporate corruption, with claimed downstream job creation and foreign investment benefits.

Field: financial management/consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not establish the national importance ofthe Petitioner's endeavor because its prospective impact would not sufficiently extend beyond her prospective clients to impact the industry or field more broadly.”
“she has not shown how her company's service would meaningfully address corruption, impact society more broadly, or result in substantial economic effects as contemplated in Dhanasar.”
“the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections.”
“even if the endeavor's revenue and job creation projections were sufficiently explained, they do not establish that her company would operate on a scale rising to the level of national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the business plan does not provide sufficient explanation for the basis of these projections”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1,312coded 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 motion to reconsider a prior AAO appellate dismissal (not a new appeal). The AAO emphasizes its limited motion-to-reconsider standard, finding the Petitioner merely rehashed prior arguments without identifying any incorrect application of law or policy. The AAO reiterates it need not reach the EB-2 classification (threshold) or prongs 2/3 because prong 1 alone was dispositive in the underlying appellate decision, citing INS v. Bagamasbad and Matter of L-A-C- for the principle that agencies need not make advisory findings on unnecessary issues.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer