NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR102024_01B52032024-04-10 · 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, a Colombian-trained accountant, proposed to own and operate a newly formed accounting, financial, and tax consulting firm in Florida serving small and medium-sized enterprises.

Field: accounting, financial, and tax consulting · 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

“the fact that a petitioner is qualified for and performs in a position in an industry or sector that is the subject of national initiatives is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of a specific endeavor”
“the Petitioner must demonstrate the national importance of her specific, proposed endeavor of owning and operating _ rather than the importance of particular industries or fields”
“the documentation submitted does not demonstrate how the Petitioner's proposed endeavor largely influences the field and rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner did not establish how the business plan's claimed financial and employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“the Petitioner did not establish that such future staffing levels would provide substantial economic benefits to the Florida area or the U.S. economy more broadly”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the authors of the letters do not address the national importance of her proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner did not show how these figures translate into substantial positive economic effects”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner's experience, skills, and abilities in her field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework”
    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
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • 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

The Director's decision was internally inconsistent regarding prong 2, finding the Petitioner well-positioned on page three but not well-positioned on page five; AAO noted this discrepancy in a footnote but did not need to resolve it since prong 1 was dispositive.

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
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer