NIW Bearings
dismissedAPR292025_10B52032025-04-29 · combined · 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 sought to operate a business venture in the field of cosmology, relying on business-plan growth projections and industry data to establish the endeavor's importance.

Field: cosmology (business venture) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record did not establish the national importance of the endeavor as contemplated in Dhanasar”
“the Petitioner did not provide an explanation or probative evidence corroborating the basis for her business projections”
“it is not the national importance of a field, industry, or profession in which an individual proposes to work”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “did not provide an explanation or probative evidence corroborating the basis for her business projections”
    AAO decision text
  • motion resubmission · discounted
    “she does not, however, provide new facts or evidence to support her statements”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the focus of the first prong of the Dhanasar framework is not on an individual's education and prior work experience, but on the proposed endeavor itself”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “it is not the national importance of a field, industry, or profession in which an individual proposes to work”
    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
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 clarifies in a footnote that its earlier appellate decision never reached exceptional-ability or prong-2 (well-positioned) issues because prong-1 national importance was dispositive, correcting the Petitioner's mischaracterization of that prior ruling. The petitioner repeatedly conflated prong-1 (national importance) with prong-2 (qualifications/well-positioned) arguments, which the AAO repeatedly redirected.

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. 103.5(a)(1)(ii)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(3)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.5(a)(4)
  • Matter of Coelho
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Matter of O-S-G-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer