NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG232024_03B52032024-08-23 · 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 planned to work as an insurance sales agent and operate his own insurance business providing personalized insurance advice and products.

Field: insurance sales / insurance business · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

Director found Petitioner did not establish advanced degree professional status (unchallenged on appeal) nor exceptional ability (at least three of six regulatory criteria not met); AAO reserved the exceptional ability issue given dispositive resolution on prong 1.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that his proposed work has national importance because the evidence does not show it would have significant potential to employ U.S. workers, broadly impact the industry, or otherwise have broader economic or societal implications”
“he has not persuasively explained, and the evidence does not demonstrate, how his proposed work would have broader implications for the insurance industry and U.S. economy as he claims, beyond his Company and its potential clientele”
“the record does not include any evidence-based justifications for the staffing projections and the claimed need to employ the stated numbers of employees”
“the record lacks corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate this projection, such as an independent basis for the Company's claimed net worth, payroll and tax expenses, and the source of the claimed revenue”
“the Petitioner's reliance on his experience and expertise pertains to Dhanasar's second prong”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the record does not include any evidence-based justifications for the staffing projections and the claimed need to employ the stated numbers of employees”
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    “the record lacks corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate this projection”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the Petitioner's reliance on his experience and expertise pertains to Dhanasar's second prong”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “the Petitioner's reliance on his aspirational assertions, support letters, and general market reports do not otherwise validate the business projections”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner continues to rely on... general market reports and articles for the insurance industry and small businesses”
    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 expressly declined to reach prongs 2 and 3 or the underlying exceptional-ability classification issue, resolving the appeal solely on prong 1 national importance; the decision explicitly distinguishes petitioner's experience/expertise arguments as belonging to prong 2 rather than prong 1.

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(k)(3)(ii)

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer