NIW Bearings
remandedOCT192022_02B52032022-10-19 · 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 decision does not describe the substantive endeavor; it concerns only a procedural dismissal of a combined motion for failure to include a judicial-proceedings statement.

Read the decision (uscis.gov)

How the evidence was treated

  • other · credited

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 does not address the merits of the NIW petition at all. The Director's combined motion to reopen/reconsider was dismissed solely for lack of a judicial-proceedings statement under 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C); on appeal, the Petitioner supplied the missing statement, so the AAO withdrew the Director's decision and remanded for a new decision on the merits of the motion. No prong analysis occurred.

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)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Director's motion dismissal rested solely on missing judicial-proceedings statement under 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(iii)(C); Petitioner cured this on appeal, requiring remand for merits review.

Transferable lesson

Always include the required statement on judicial proceedings with motions to reopen/reconsider to avoid summary procedural dismissal unrelated to substantive eligibility.

Endeavor framing

vague

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles