NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR292025_07B52032025-04-29 · motion_reconsider

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 a business venture supported by a business plan and economic/job-creation projections, though the specific field or product is not described.

Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

AAO had already found the Petitioner eligible for EB-2 classification in the prior appeal decision.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Our prior decision correctly concluded that the Petitioner had not shown that the potential prospective impact of her proposed endeavor stands to offer broader implications in her field or to generate substantial positive economic effects for our nation.”
“She repeats earlier claims relating to her business plan and two expert opinion letters.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “merely reargue facts and issues we have already considered in our previous decisions”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “a motion to reconsider is not a process by which a party may submit, in essence, the same brief presented on appeal”
    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
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 fourth-round motion (appeal plus three prior motions); AAO applies strict motion-to-reconsider standard, declining to re-adjudicate and emphasizing that mere reargument of the same facts/business plan does not meet 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3) standard.

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
  • Matter of O-S-G-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

On a fourth post-appeal filing, she argued Dhanasar's substantial-merit language barred weighing economic projections under national importance; AAO held the two tests are distinct and the motion merely re-argued settled issues.

Transferable lesson

Dhanasar's line that merit needs no quantifiable economic impact applies to substantial merit, not national importance, where prospective economic effects are weighed; repeating the same brief cannot win reconsideration.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

mixed

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer