NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR082024_03B52032024-04-08 · 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 sought to establish a company in Florida offering an electronic document management platform allowing small and medium-sized businesses to remotely access and manage their business data.

Field: electronic document management / technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner claimed exceptional ability but only met one of six required regulatory criteria (academic record); failed to show 10 years' employer-verified experience, a valid license/certification, qualifying professional membership, or recognition for significant industry contributions; comparable evidence argument was not properly raised.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not shown how the electronic document management services he intends to provide to small businesses in Florida would have broader implications in the IT industry”
“the record does not provide adequate support for a determination that his specific proposed endeavor will have such a wide-reaching impact”
“the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections depicted”
“the expert opinion letter is very general ... and does not address the Petitioner's business plan, the specific proposed endeavor described therein”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · credited
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the only letter is from the Petitioner's foreign accountant, who was not the Petitioner's employer”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “there is no evidence that being a union member ... is either a license to practice the profession or a certification”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the catho.com website screenshot does not offer sufficient information or details to verify the applicability and accuracy of the stated salary information”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the letters do not document that the Petitioner has received recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry or field”
    AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
  • business plan · discounted
    “the plan does not sufficiently detail the basis for the revenue and staffing projections depicted”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the expert opinion letter is very general, significantly focuses on the importance of small businesses and entrepreneurship”
    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
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • 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

Unusual double failure: AAO first withdraws the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an individual of exceptional ability (reversing in Petitioner's disfavor) for failing to meet 3 of 6 regulatory criteria, then separately denies on Dhanasar prong 1 for lack of national importance, reserving prongs 2 and 3 entirely.

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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer