NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG242021_03B52032021-08-24 · 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, an IT project manager with a background in security and fire-solutions technology, proposed to continue working in the U.S. helping companies implement IT and security process improvements to increase operational efficiency.

Field: information technology / IT project management (security, fire solutions) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found, and AAO did not disturb, that Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“he has not provided documentary evidence that he is conducting research in industrial engineering that would impact the Petitioner's IT project management field more broadly”
“the Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence of the job duties, projects, or research he would be responsible for completing in his proposed job offer”
“they do not specifically show the government's interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • media · discounted
    “they do not specifically show the government's interest in the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “he has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “Although he relies on his past work, the Petitioner has not offered sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate ... national importance”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    “he has not provided documentary evidence that he is conducting research in industrial engineering that would impact the Petitioner's IT project management field more broadly”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the Petitioner has not provided documentary evidence of the job duties, projects, or research he would be responsible for completing in his proposed job offer”
    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
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 explicitly folds the Petitioner's PhD enrollment and tentative university job offer into the prong-1 national-importance analysis rather than treating them as prong-2 'well positioned' evidence, reasoning that expertise/education issues belong to prong 2 but that the specific prospective impact of these activities was unsubstantiated under prong 1. The decision also notes it rests on each stated basis as an independent and alternate ground for dismissal.

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)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer