NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR052023_06B52032023-04-05 · appeal · 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 research U.S. policies, legal frameworks, and coordination mechanisms for collecting, sharing, and using geospatial data more effectively, aiming to enhance government decision-making and spur private-sector geospatial technology development.

Field: geospatial information management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude that the Petitioner has not demonstrated the national importance of her proposed U.S. research.”
“the Petitioner's appellate evidence does not demonstrate the national importance of her proposed research as of the petition's filing.”
“the Petitioner's appellate evidence lacks sufficient details to establish that her proposed work could have a broad impact on the field or the United States.”
“the record does not sufficiently indicate the project's "potential prospective impact."”
“counsel's assertion does not constitute evidence.”
“The record lacks sufficient proof of the project, the researcher's intended use of the Petitioner or her research on the project, or the project's potential prospective impact.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the record does not sufficiently indicate the project's "potential prospective impact."”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · ignored
    “counsel's assertion does not constitute evidence.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(1), the Petitioner's appellate evidence does not demonstrate the national importance of her proposed U.S. research at the time of the petition's filing.”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
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

AAO expressly declined to reach prong 2 and prong 3/US-benefits issues, citing Bagamasbad, because prong 1's national-importance failure alone resolved the appeal. Also notable: AAO faulted appellate evidence for post-dating the petition's filing date under 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(1), even though it still substantively reviewed it.

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. 103.2(b)(1)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer