NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR182024_11B52032024-04-18 · 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 sought to work as a business manager in the RD&I and transport/supply markets, managing inventory control, market studies, sales, production forecasting, and marketing intelligence.

Field: business management / transport business administration and logistics · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualifies as an advanced degree professional; this was not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not show it has national importance”
“she has not provided sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the business growth resulting for her employer(s) and/or their future customers rises to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not provided projected employment numbers and revenue growth to establish how her endeavor will impact the area of intended operations”
“Generalized conclusory statements that do not identify a specific impact in the field have little probative value.”
“both expert opinion letters rely primarily on the importance of the industry to establish the national importance of the endeavor”
“The Petitioner's statements could reasonably apply to any business manager in the field who has a positive impact on their employer's operations”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “much of the content of the expert opinion letters lack relevance with respect to the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · ignored
  • other · discounted
    “she does not provide further explanation regarding how her endeavor would have broader implications to the field”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “the Petitioner relies on the same arguments she previously put forth in response to the Director's RFE”
    AAO decision text

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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Letters not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
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

AAO agreed substantial merit was met (business falls within Dhanasar's enumerated areas) but found national importance unestablished, illustrating that substantial merit and national importance are treated as separable sub-elements within prong 1. AAO expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 as unnecessary given the dispositive prong 1 failure.

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 Caron Int'l
  • Matter of D-R-
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer