NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR292024_03B52032024-04-29 · appeal · Nebraska 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 Beneficiary, a software engineer at the petitioning technology company, worked on migrating data from a legacy source control system to Git, developed a tool called Git-hfs to assist that migration, and worked on engineering security and consistency practices for his team.

Field: advanced computing / software engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Here, the proposed endeavor supports the Petitioner.”
“the record does not establish how the endeavor would have broader implications in the field, a significant potential to employ U.S. workers, or substantial positive economic effects”
“He focuses on the Beneficiary's field and neglects to narrow in on the Beneficiary's specific endeavor to explain its national importance.”
“nothing in this evidence mentions the Beneficiary's specific work with the WebXT team”
“there is not enough in the record to establish the national importance by a preponderance of the evidence”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “He focuses on the Beneficiary's field and neglects to narrow in on the Beneficiary's specific endeavor to explain its national importance.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “he provided no further detail and no examples of it being used beyond”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “none of the articles reference the Beneficiary, Git-hfs, or the WebXT team's work”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “cannot establish eligibility as it was not presented in the original petition”
    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
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 found the Petitioner impermissibly changed the proposed endeavor on appeal/RFE by adding a new AI application (referred to as redacted), invoking Matter of Izummi's material-change doctrine, and refused to consider that evidence, limiting analysis to the originally filed endeavor.

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. 103.3
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of L-A-C-

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Petitioner failed to show the endeavor (as filed, excluding later-added AI project) had impact extending beyond the employer to the broader field, workforce, or economy.

Transferable lesson

Define the endeavor precisely at filing and submit evidence directly tying that specific work—not the field generally—to broader national-scale impact.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

critical_emerging_tech · field_advancement · us_competitiveness

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer