NIW Bearings
remandedAUG082024_01B52032024-08-08 · 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 a business administrator handling human resources, helping organizations function more efficiently and recommending changes to policies and procedures.

Field: business administration / human resources · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO withdrew the Director's unexplained finding that Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional/exceptional ability worker because he failed to submit original transcripts for his Bachelor of Theology and Technologist degrees and did not submit a translated version of his Lato Sensu specialization transcript, precluding meaningful review.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established

“The reach of such an endeavor appears limited to the companies and clients who would employ the Petitioner.”
“Here, the reach of the endeavor appears limited to the Petitioner's clients.”
“In determining national importance, it is not the importance of the field that determines an endeavor's national importance, but rather how the specific endeavor will impact the field on a level commensurate with national importance.”
“A petitioner may not make material changes to a petition in an effort to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionedestablished

“Further, the Director determined that the evidence failed to show that the Petitioner's "contributions impacted beyond his employers or its clients." These are not relevant considerations for analysis under prong two.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “rests his assessment on a finding that business field is important and the Petitioner's skills would be beneficial for any company he would work for”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “did not submit a copy of his original transcripts for his Bachelor of Theology degree or his Technologist degree”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “this type of evidence is more appropriate for the second prong when determining if the petitioner is well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “seems to point to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in his industry”
    AAO decision text
  • business plan · discounted
    “cannot retroactively establish eligibility”
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “seems to point to the Petitioner's past accomplishments and experiences, not the specific endeavor's potential impact in his industry”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • NEW new endeavor barred on appeal · p1
  • 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
  • Local, not national scope · p1 — impact confined to clients / a region
1coded 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

Unusual remand posture: rather than dismissing, the AAO withdrew the Director's own findings that the Petitioner met the threshold EB-2 classification and prong one (for lack of any analysis), and separately faulted the Director's prong-two analysis for relying on irrelevant considerations (e.g., requiring national/global impact rather than a proper prong-two showing). The AAO also barred a newly asserted trucking-company endeavor first raised on appeal as an impermissible material change under Matter of Izummi. Prong three was reserved as unnecessary given the remand.

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. 204.5(k)(2)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of L-A-C-
  • USCIS Policy Manual F.5(B)(2)

What this case teaches

Analyst reading of the decision text.

Decisive factor

Director's original decision lacked any analysis or evidentiary citation for prongs 1-2 and misapplied prong-2 criteria (national/global impact, contributions beyond employer) to prong 1, requiring remand for reasoned adjudication.

Transferable lesson

Tie expert and record evidence directly to the specific endeavor's prospective national-scale impact, not to the general importance of the field or the petitioner's personal credentials.

Endeavor framing

vague

National-importance theory

economic_growth_generic

Evidence targeting

person_focused

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer