NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR192021_08B52032021-04-19 · 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 Brazilian entrepreneur, proposed to continue operating cross-border consulting and marketing businesses in the U.S., including manufacturing compact elevators for people with disabilities and developing an alternative education system.

Field: business intelligence consulting / entrepreneurship (marketing, cross-border trade, manufacturing, education) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Petitioner did not show an advanced degree or its equivalent, and did not establish at least three of the six exceptional ability criteria (experience letters, salary, membership, recognition) nor qualifying comparable evidence.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“we conclude the record does not show that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor stands to sufficiently extend beyond his company, partnerships, and clientele to impact his field or the industry more broadly”
“The Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how these staffing and revenue forecasts were calculated.”
“he has not offered sufficient evidence that the area where they will operate is economically depressed, that he would employ a significant population of workers in that area”
“The Petitioner's knowledge, skills, and experience in his field relate to the second prong of the Dhanasar framework, which "shifts the focus from the proposed endeavor to the foreign national."”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • resume experience · discounted
    “do not meet this requirement, nor do they indicate that the Petitioner's experience was "full-time."”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “This information is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Brazilian E-Commerce Association ... constitutes a professional association.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “these letters are not sufficient to demonstrate his recognition for achievements and significant contributions to the industry”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not adequately explain how these staffing and revenue forecasts were calculated.”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “This evaluation does not indicate that the Petitioner has "a foreign equivalent degree" to a United States advanced degree”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “This documentation falls short in demonstrating that he has at least ten years of full-time experience as an entrepreneur.”
    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
  • 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

Decision explicitly rests on three independent alternate grounds: failure of advanced degree, failure of exceptional ability, and failure of Dhanasar prong 1; AAO notes experience/business acumen arguments were misdirected to prong 2 when raised under prong 1.

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. 103.2(b)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer