NIW Bearings
dismissedSEP302024_10B52032024-09-30 · 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 petitioner proposed to start an audiovisual production business, including providing training in project management and audiovisual content creation to small businesses located in an IRS opportunity zone.

Field: audiovisual production/entrepreneurship · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we agreed with the Director that the Petitioner had not adequately outlined the basis for the prospective economic growth or otherwise demonstrated an impact extending beyond her immediate clientele.”
“our prior decision did consider this evidence, ultimately concluding that the proposal was insufficiently detailed or supported to demonstrate that any impacts would necessarily be felt in an economically depressed area”
“she lacked a physical location for the business and had not sufficiently demonstrated that the work would be carried out in an IRS opportunity zone.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “our decision rested on a lack of adequate foundation and support for these claims”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “The proffered articles are not specific to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor related to audiovisual entrepreneurship.”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “The Petitioner has not submitted additional evidence in support of the motion to reopen, instead relying on the previous record.”
    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 decision reviewing the AAO's own prior appellate dismissal; the Petitioner argued the AAO failed to consider evidence collectively and imposed a numeric jobs requirement not found in Dhanasar, which the AAO rejected as a misstatement of its prior decision. A footnote clarifies the AAO is not required to individually analyze every piece of evidence, only to review the record in its entirety.

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)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • Buletini v. INS
  • Matter of Coelho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer