NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR172026_01B52032026-04-17 · appeal · SCOPS 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 work as a consultant engineer through his own company, specializing in development projects to design affordable and resilient housing solutions to mitigate homelessness, particularly in regions impacted by natural disasters, focusing on states such as California, New York, Florida, Washington, and Texas.

Field: civil engineering / infrastructure and affordable housing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

SCOPS found the petitioner qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional; not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his proposed endeavor stands to have an impact beyond the organization and clients he would serve”
“a petitioner's work in an important industry, even one that is the subject of national priorities, is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the national importance of the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor”
“he does not further explain, for instance, how the 'federal data on the national housing shortage' or 'economic reports documenting the urgency of increasing housing supply' establish that his proposed endeavor, in particular, would have broader impacts”
“The Petitioner must still demonstrate his proposed endeavor's potential prospective impact in that area of national importance.”
“He does not otherwise address SCOPS' specific findings pertaining to the national importance element of Dhanasar's first prong.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • other · discounted
    “he does not further explain how the 'federal data on the national housing shortage' or 'economic reports documenting the urgency of increasing housing supply' establish that his proposed endeavor, in particular, would have broader impacts”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · credited

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • 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
2,501coded 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 AAO noted that the petitioner's appellate brief incorrectly stated that SCOPS had found the second prong satisfied, suggesting a factual error in the brief. The AAO declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 under INS v. Bagamasbad. The appeal was dismissed primarily because the petitioner's arguments were too generalized and failed to specifically rebut SCOPS's findings on national importance, rather than because the underlying evidence was inherently insufficient. Service center identified as SCOPS (Service Center Operations), coded as 'other' since SCOPS is a headquarters-level entity rather than a field service center.

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his specific endeavor (not just the housing industry generally) would have impact beyond his clients/organization, and made only generalized, unsubstantiated appellate arguments.

Transferable lesson

Tie the specific endeavor—not the general industry or national priority—to concrete, quantifiable national-scale impact (jobs, economic effect, geographic reach) and rebut denial grounds with specificity on appeal.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · field_advancement

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer