NIW Bearings
dismissedOCT172025_01B52032025-10-17 · 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 sought to expand and consolidate a consulting, advisory, and solutions company providing logistics management services.

Field: logistics management / supply chain consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the submitted evidence did not sufficiently explain the basis for financial projections or growth in employees such that the proposed endeavor would have substantial economic benefits”
“the record did not show that the Petitioner's endeavor would have a broader impact on the logistics management industry”
“these documents do not demonstrate the broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that are indicative of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not demonstrated the relevance of these numbers or provided supporting documentation to demonstrate how these operations generate substantial economic effects”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “these documents do not demonstrate the broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for our nation”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “do not demonstrate the broader implications in his field or substantial positive economic effects for our nation that are indicative of national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner cites evidence that was previously considered in our prior decisions such as his business plan and the articles on logistics services”
    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
1,358coded 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 was the third combined motion to reopen/reconsider in a lengthy procedural history: an initial appeal was mistakenly rejected as untimely, then a subsequent motion was dismissed before AAO discovered the rejection notice had been issued in error and reopened the matter on its own motion under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(5); two further combined motions followed before this decision.

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)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer