NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR262023_02B52032023-04-26 · 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, an IT project manager, proposed to run his own IT business in Florida providing IT project management services to clients.

Field: information technology · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner has not established that the benefit of his services will extend beyond his clients, company, and/or employer.”
“Here, the Petitioner improperly relies upon the importance of the industry as sufficient to establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor.”
“the Petitioner has not sufficiently explained how his work as an IT project manager and entrepreneur would resolve the shortage or produce an impact rising to the level of national importance.”
“the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient foundation or corroborating details to support the growth projections he provided in his business plan.”
“these figures appear to be little more than conjecture.”
“the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish a strong connection between the proposed endeavor activities and job creation or tax revenues”
“these letters do not discuss the proposed endeavor or provide specific details on its national importance.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not provided a sufficient foundation or corroborating details to support the growth projections he provided in his business plan.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “these letters do not discuss the proposed endeavor or provide specific details on its national importance.”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “none of the reference materials discuss the Petitioner's specific proposed endeavor.”
    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
  • 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
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1 — argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
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

Petitioner raised a due process claim alleging he was denied opportunity to respond via RFE; AAO rejected this by pointing to his own RFE response acknowledging the deficiency notice.

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
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show his IT business's benefits would extend beyond his own clients/employer to a scale of national importance; growth projections were unsupported conjecture.

Transferable lesson

Tie the specific endeavor—not the industry generally—to corroborated, quantifiable national-scale impact (jobs, revenue, geographic reach) beyond individual clients.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_job_creation · economic_growth_generic · geographic_or_shortage_area · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer