NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG262025_01B52032025-08-26 · appeal

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 sought to serve as general manager of his own IT services company operating in Florida and Texas, providing server monitoring, help desk, network access control, IT training, and consulting to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Field: information technology / computer networks · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — not met

AAO found the foreign technologist degree was not shown to be the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree (EDGE and the Highstone evaluation conflicted, and no transcript was provided), and the employment letters failed to document five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. This finding did not form the basis of dismissal because the petitioner was not on notice of the issue.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

the business plan is insufficient evidence to establish that the endeavor is of national importance based on its economic impact.
the articles and industry reports do not establish the Company's national importance.
he has not provided sufficient evidence that his endeavor would solve or make an impact on the STEM or IT shortage
the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, or profession in which the individual will work

AAO decision text

Prong 3 — balance of factorsnot established · dispositive

We adopt and affirm SCOPS' decision regarding the Petitioner's ineligibility under the third Dhanasar prong.

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    the business plan is insufficient evidence to establish that the endeavor is of national importance based on its economic impact.
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    the letters are relevant to prong two of the Dhanasar framework but do not establish the broader implications of his proposed endeavor
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    the articles and industry reports do not establish the Company's national importance.
    AAO decision text
  • contract revenue · discounted
    insufficient to show... revenue growth, revenue generation, or job creation because they were executed after the filing of the petition.
    AAO decision text
  • degree · discounted
    the evidence is insufficient to establish the Petitioner's educational background.
    AAO decision text
All 6 evidence items
  • resume experience · discounted
    the letters he provided are insufficient to establish his job duties.
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Economic claims unsupported · p1job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Occupational shortage argument rejected · p1argues a labor shortage — the labor-certification question, not Dhanasar
  • Derivative of Prong 1/2 failure · p3prong three fails only because prongs one or two did — no independent ground
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

The AAO found the petitioner did not actually qualify for underlying EB-2 classification (degree equivalency and experience letters were deficient) but declined to make this the basis of dismissal because the petitioner had not been put on notice of the issue, resting the dismissal instead on Dhanasar prongs one and three; the decision also contains an apparent typo referring to 'EB-5 classification' where EB-2 was clearly meant.

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. 103.2(b)(8)
  • 8 C.F.R. 103.3
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(g)(1)
  • Chen v. INS
  • Matter of E-M-
  • Matter of Ho
  • Matter of Katigbak

Cases in adjacent profiles