NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG052021_02B52032021-08-05 · 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, founder and CEO of a retail shop company operating several locations in Florida, sought to continue operating and expand that company (including through a licensed store model) and to run a small one-on-one business mentorship program.

Field: retail business (shops) / business consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced-degree professional (his business did not require a baccalaureate degree), and found he also failed to establish exceptional ability in business, satisfying only 1 of the required 3 of 6 regulatory criteria (education criterion met; experience letters, salary/remuneration, membership, and recognition criteria all failed).

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“General assertions about the aggregate importance of millions of U.S. small businesses do not establish the national importance of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor in particular.”
“The above figures do not indicate that has national importance in economic terms.”
“The Petitioner has not shown that the figures in the business plan are based on anything other than highly optimistic speculation, assuming rates of growth far beyond what the company has actually shown between 2015 and 2019.”
“The business plan is useful as an explanation of the Petitioner's plans and intentions, but it is not evidence of the proposed endeavor's significance or importance.”
“Its one-on-one mentorship structure inherently limits its direct impact to a very small number of clients; the record identifies two such individuals.”
“The cited letters, however, do not mention let alone establish the national importance of the proposed endeavor.”
“Because the documentation in the record does not establish the national importance of his proposed endeavor as required by the first prong of the Dhanasar precedent decision, the Petitioner has not demonstrated eligibility for a national interest waiver.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “Unsubstantiated assertions do not take on greater weight when presented in the form of a business plan.”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not establish that this activity occurs at a nationally important scale, or has produced significant employment or other economic benefits.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the Petitioner does not explain how any of these letters relate to the proposed endeavor at all.”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “Umbrella terms such as "business" or "executive" do not establish that the Petitioner worked in the same occupation for all these employers.”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “The Petitioner has not established that his occupation is a profession, or that the organizations to which he belongs serve a purpose comparable to a professional association.”
    AAO decision text
All 7 evidence items
  • degree · credited
  • other · discounted
    “The above figures do not indicate that has national importance in economic terms.”
    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 not independent · p1 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • 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

AAO withdrew the Director's alternative threshold finding (advanced degree professional) sua sponte, finding the Petitioner instead failed to qualify under his actually-claimed exceptional ability category, but declined to make this a basis for dismissal, resting the decision on prong 1 national importance instead. AAO noted the Petitioner's cited unpublished pre-Dhanasar NIW approvals for other entrepreneurs were not comparable or precedential.

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. 204.5(g)(1)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer