NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR242024_02B52032024-04-24 · 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 an infrastructure project manager, collaborating with U.S. companies and organizations on infrastructure projects, including analyzing proposals, monitoring construction, and ensuring contractor compliance, later supplemented by a business plan to build a consulting business tied to the U.S. Infrastructure Act.

Field: infrastructure project management · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“The Petitioner has neither described these "novel" and "unique" projects nor suggested that his solutions or methodologies somehow differ from or improve upon those already available and in use in the United States.”
“However, the Petitioner did not demonstrate how the business plan's claimed revenue and employment projections, even if credible or plausible, have significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“it does not sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial projections”
“these letters do not provide details regarding the Petitioner's future endeavor or how it will specifically impact the infrastructure industry or profession”
“the record does not support the Petitioner's company would operate on such a large scale that would benefit the U.S. economy rising to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “it does not sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial projections”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “these letters do not provide details regarding the Petitioner's future endeavor or how it will specifically impact the infrastructure industry or profession”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “Merely working in an important field is insufficient to establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “does not sufficiently demonstrate the basis for its financial projections”
    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
  • 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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
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

AAO expressly withdrew the Director's finding of a material change in the proposed endeavor, holding that RFE responses clarifying/detailing an initial endeavor and adding a business plan did not constitute an impermissible change; nonetheless dismissed on prong 1 national importance grounds and declined 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
  • Flores v. Garland
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer