NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG262024_11B52032024-08-26 · appeal · Nebraska 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 industrial engineer, initially proposed to work as an independent contractor engineer and administrative/facilities manager, but later described his endeavor as founding and serving as CEO of his own engineering firm employing multiple staff.

Field: industrial engineering / manufacturing · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO disagreed with the Director and found the Petitioner did not establish at least five years of progressive post-degree experience; his only qualifying employment letter showed less than three years of post-degree work, with pre-degree internship time excluded.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“If the Petitioner's RFE response proposes an activity in an entirely different field or occupation, that may be considered as a material change to the petition and disregarded on appeal.”
“the business plan, without any independent evidence, proposes a number of prospective employees and financial projections for his company”
“these figures, which the Petitioner claims represent potentially significant economic impact, lack corroborating evidence that would objectively substantiate them”
“the industry reports he submitted, which were also incorporated into his business plan, generally highlight the importance of the engineering, manufacturing, and infrastructure fields”
“they do not contain any detail as to the economic impact the Petitioner claims the potential investments would generate”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “the business plan, without any independent evidence, proposes a number of prospective employees and financial projections for his company”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the referenced evidence focuses on the Petitioner's experience and expertise and specifically pertains to Dhanasar's second prong”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “they do not contain any detail as to the economic impact the Petitioner claims the potential investments would generate”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited
  • motion resubmission · ignored
    “We therefore decline to consider the new documents on appeal.”
    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
  • Letters conclusory · p1 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Material change of endeavor · p1 — the endeavor described on appeal is not the one filed
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 favorable finding on the five-year progressive experience requirement (threshold EB-2), but since the national-importance failure under prong 1 was independently dispositive, it did not rely on the threshold defect to dismiss the appeal. The decision also addresses a 'material change' issue (shift from independent engineer/administrative manager to CEO of a new firm) as a discrete analytical step feeding into the prong 1 finding.

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)
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of Izummi
  • Matter of Katigbak

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer