NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP182024_05B52032024-09-18 · 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, an electrical engineer, sought to work in the United States specializing in power systems, though the specific project details were redacted.

Field: power systems / electrical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“We, however, concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that his proposed endeavor has national importance”
“unlike the scientific researcher in Dhanasar, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor offers broader implications in his field”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “simply disagreeing with our conclusions, without showing how we misapplied law or pointing to policy that contradicts our analysis”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “a motion to reconsider is not a process by which the party may submit in essence, the same brief and seek reconsideration by generally alleging error in the prior decision”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
1,581coded 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 following a prior AAO appellate dismissal on the same petition; the AAO's review was limited to whether its prior decision misapplied law or policy, not a fresh merits review. The Petitioner's argument that AAO 'overlooked' evidence or applied a 'stricter than required standard' was rejected as mere disagreement, citing Matter of O-S-G- for the principle that reasserting the same arguments does not suffice on a motion to reconsider.

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

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer