NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR182023_02B52032023-04-18 · 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 work as a private security consultant or trainer, developing and implementing emergency preparedness programs to help mitigate threats of domestic terrorist attacks in schools.

Field: private security services · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner met 3 of 6 exceptional ability criteria, concluding he met only 1 (ten years of experience letters); he failed criteria for academic record, license/certification, salary, membership, and recognition for achievements.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry or profession in which the individual will work”
“The Petitioner has not provided sufficient information concerning the impact of his specific endeavor.”
“the record does not show his endeavor will create jobs or generate tax revenue”
“While the Petitioner's private security services stand to impact those who employ him, the record does not demonstrate how his endeavor would impact the field of security more broadly or the nation as a whole.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • degree · discounted
    “The Petitioner has not provided any official academic record.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · credited
  • certification membership · discounted
    “the certificates are not certifications for the occupation”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the record does not contain documentation comparing the salaries of private security specialists”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “This evidence does not include specific details explaining how the Petitioner's work contributed to the industry or field as a whole.”
    AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “the record does not show that benefits to the U.S. regional or national economy resulting from the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would reach the level of "substantial positive economic effects"”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner relies on arguments and evidence already provided”
    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
  • 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
2,589coded 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 withdrew multiple favorable Director findings on exceptional ability criteria (reducing from 3 met to 1), then, despite the threshold failure obviating further analysis, still proceeded to substantively analyze and reject prong 1 as an independent dispositive basis, expressly declining to reach prongs 2 and 3.

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)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer