NIW Bearings
dismissedAUG302024_02B52032024-08-30 · 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 sought to serve as industrial production manager of his own company manufacturing and selling industrial, residential, and decorative lighting fixtures, headquartered in California with planned expansion into Florida and Massachusetts HUBZones.

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

EB-2 threshold — addressed

The Director found the Petitioner met three of six exceptional-ability criteria but never issued a final merits determination; the AAO expressly reserved the EB-2 classification issue since the appeal was resolved on NIW grounds.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the record does not establish that the specific endeavor he proposes to undertake has significant potential to employ U.S. workers”
“the Petitioner has not offered sufficient evidence that his business will be located in a HUBZone.”
“the record demonstrates that the impact of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would be limited to his direct clients and would therefore not rise to the level of national importance”
“Because the identified reasons for dismissal are dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining arguments”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • business plan · discounted
    “The Petitioner's claims of his proposed endeavor's economic impact have not been established through independent and objective evidence.”
    AAO decision text
  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “it restates many of the same claims already addressed above, speaking broadly of the manufacturing industry, small businesses, and entrepreneurship”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “the record does not specify any innovation, new business practices, or enhanced societal welfare that would be directly attributable to the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    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
  • 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

The AAO noted a discrepancy between the business plan's projection of 43 jobs and the definitive statement's claim of 38 jobs but found it immaterial. The Petitioner's HUBZone-based argument for national importance was rejected for lack of evidence that the business would actually be located in or eligible for a HUBZone.

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. 103.3
  • Flores v. Garland
  • Matter of L-A-C-

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer