NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT012025_09B52032025-10-01 · combined

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, an accounting consultant, proposed to continue her career applying International Financial Reporting Standards expertise to advise small and medium enterprises through consultancy and advisory services, from initial diagnosis through implementation.

Field: accounting / IFRS consulting for SMEs · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

A prior motion decision already concluded the Petitioner had established eligibility as a member of the professions with an advanced degree; this issue is no longer contested.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“We noted that the record did not include evidence of the Petitioner's proposed projects in the United States, or other information about the specific consulting work she will undertake.”
“However, the additional statistics do not describe with specificity her proposed endeavor.”
“the record does not include a description or corroborating evidence of the Petitioner's business model.”
“The Petitioner's statements in the record provide generalized projections that are not specific and detailed enough to establish the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor.”
“she does not sufficiently describe her proposed endeavor to support these claims.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “The Petitioner's explanation and additional evidence does not add specificity to her proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner's arguments for the national importance of her proposed endeavor rested on examples of her skills and prior work experience as an accountant and did not explain how her specific proposed endeavor would have a potential prospective impact”
    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
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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 the Petitioner's third combined motion to reopen and reconsider in the same proceeding; the AAO had already found the advanced-degree threshold satisfied in an earlier motion decision, leaving only the national-importance prong (endeavor specificity) at issue. The AAO emphasized the scope-of-motion limitation under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1), reviewing only its own latest decision rather than re-adjudicating the whole record, and cited Matter of O-S-G- to characterize the motion as improper rearguing of previously rejected points.

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)
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of O-S-G-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(D)(1)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner repeatedly failed to specify her proposed endeavor beyond generic career description, precluding any national-importance analysis; new evidence was generic and not new facts warranting reopening.

Transferable lesson

Define a concrete, specific endeavor (projects, methods, targets) before arguing national importance; generic statistics about an industry cannot substitute for endeavor specificity.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer