NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR222024_06B52032024-04-22 · 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 soccer coach and entrepreneur, proposed to develop a sports academy in Florida specializing in soccer training.

Field: athletics / soccer coaching · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the staffing levels themselves are not substantial enough to rise to the level of national importance”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that his business will be located in a HUBZone”
“the record does not establish the proposed endeavor will benefit more than the direct clients it will serve”
“Past experience is applicable to prong two analysis...but is not proof of national importance”
“The Petitioner's claims of his proposed endeavor's economic impact have not been established through independent and objective evidence”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the business plan calculated these numbers by using full-time employment, while also stating that the nature of the business may not merit full-time staff”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “Past experience is applicable to prong two analysis...but is not proof of national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “an expert opinion letter that reiterates many of the same arguments the Petitioner makes that have been addressed above”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “they also do not show national importance. It is the importance of the specific endeavor we must analyze and not the industry itself.”
    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
  • 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 AAO rejected the petitioner's HUBZone-based economically-depressed-area argument for lack of evidence that the business would actually participate in or qualify for the HUBZone program, and cited Dhanasar's own facts (teaching activities not impacting the field broadly) as analogous to the petitioner's planned second-location expansion.

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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to substantiate national importance: job-creation figures were speculative, HUBZone/economic-depression claims unproven, and expansion plans lacked evidence of broader industry impact beyond direct clients.

Transferable lesson

Support national-importance claims with independent, objective evidence of scale (verified job numbers, documented economically depressed area status, proof of broader field impact) rather than speculative business-plan projections.

Endeavor framing

moderate

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · geographic_or_shortage_area · economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer