NIW Bearings
dismissedMAY152024_02B52032024-05-15 · 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, employed in the construction industry, sought an NIW based on his work history and claimed broader economic impact of his employment, though the specific endeavor's details are not elaborated in this motion decision.

Field: construction industry · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“they all discuss the construction industry's economic impact generally and do not speak specifically to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work; instead, we focus on the "the specific endeavor that the foreign national proposes to undertake."”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“the recommendation letters are not material, relevant, or probative”
“the record did not adequately establish the Petitioner's proposed endeavor remained the same when he changed positions”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “The statement is a repackaging of material that has been previously submitted in this case.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “they all discuss the construction industry's economic impact generally and do not speak specifically to the national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the recommendation letters are not material, relevant, or probative”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • NEW endeavor consistency not established · p2
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
2,589coded 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

The Petitioner cited a non-precedent AAO decision (In re F-E-) as binding precedent, which the AAO clarified does not bind USCIS adjudications; the AAO also emphasized that disagreement with prior conclusions, without showing legal error, is not grounds for reconsideration.

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. 103.3(c)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of O-S-G-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to submit genuinely new facts/evidence or identify legal error; motions largely reasserted prior evidence and general industry claims, not new endeavor-specific proof.

Transferable lesson

Motions to reopen/reconsider must present truly new, endeavor-specific evidence or pinpoint legal error—resubmitting prior evidence or generalized industry impact claims will fail.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer