NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG222022_02B52032022-08-22 · 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, a civil engineer, proposed to open a U.S. branch of his family's Brazilian engineering firm to provide specialized diagnostic software and consulting services for roads and highways construction and maintenance to private and government clients.

Field: civil engineering (roads and highways infrastructure consulting) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“in determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the industry, field, or profession in which an individual will work”
“The record establishes only that the [P]etitioner's company would have substantial merit to the improvement of roads and highways specific to the individual customers or clients that would choose to hire its services.”
“the record in general, and the business plan in particular, does not specify the location where the Petitioner intends to pursue the proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not established that the proposed endeavor has national importance, as required by the first Dhanasar prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “does not specify the location where the Petitioner intends to pursue the proposed endeavor and the location where the 21 to 29 workers... would work”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “does not establish how its uniqueness may have national or global implications”
    AAO decision text
  • other · ignored
    “does not explain the technology but appears to be a visual guide to a more detailed in-person presentation”
    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
  • 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 emphasized that a letter dated after the filing date, describing a future field test, constituted a 'new set of facts' that could not establish eligibility under Matter of Katigbak, even though the Petitioner argued the Director had 'overlooked' it. AAO also stressed that Petitioner conflated the merit and national-importance elements of Dhanasar prong one.

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)
  • Matter of Katigbak
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer