NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC012021_01B52032021-12-01 · 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.

Petitioner, an industrial designer specializing in exhibition booth design, later reframed her endeavor as revitalizing public marketplaces throughout the United States.

Field: industrial design (exhibition booth design) · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director and AAO agreed she qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; exceptional ability claim not reached.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“the Petitioner did not show how her proposed endeavor would benefit the industry or field or have broader implications”
“broad statements such as this about the national importance of a particular field are insufficient to demonstrate that a petitioner's specific proposed endeavor meets the first prong”
“because the Petitioner's proposed endeavor lacks sufficient detail, such as specifics about design projects she would undertake, we are unable to determine that this work would be of national importance”
“the evidence submitted in response to the NOIR did not demonstrate that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor would have national or even global implications”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established · dispositive

“this education by itself is not sufficient to demonstrate that she is well positioned”
“the record lacks evidence of the Petitioner's specific roles in projects listed on her curriculum vitae, and thus does not demonstrate a record of success in her field”
“the record does not include independent verification of the projects' success from those clients”
“he does not elaborate on whether these projects were successful”
“the email does not show interest from potential employers in her pursuit of the revitalization of traditional marketplaces, nor is there additional evidence in the record regarding her plans to advance that endeavor”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “he did not write a recommendation letter for the Petitioner and did not know which exhibitions or events she had worked on”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the record lacks evidence of the Petitioner's specific roles in projects listed on her curriculum vitae”
    AAO decision text
  • certification membership · discounted
    “the CEO of the company as listed on the certificate is the Petitioner's husband”
    AAO decision text
  • media · discounted
    “the record does not include independent verification of the projects' success from those clients”
    AAO decision text
  • degree · credited
All 6 evidence items
  • other · discounted
    “this email serves as an additional example of the lack of specificity in the record regarding the Petitioner's proposed endeavor”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Economic claims unsupported · p1 — job/revenue projections with no corroborating basis
  • Employer-specific benefit · p1 — "work furthers my company's product" — value accrues to one firm
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Field importance conflated with endeavor · p1 — argues the field matters, not the specific endeavor
  • Education alone insufficient · p2 — degrees offered as positioning — credentials are not a track record
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • Letters not independent · p2 — letters come from employers and close collaborators, not independent experts
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
  • Record of success insufficient · p2 — a claimed track record the documents do not establish
2,501coded 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

Case involved revocation of a prior approval and a separate finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact based on a fraudulent recommendation letter, which AAO upheld as an independent, material ground undermining the second prong; this fraud analysis dominates a significant portion of the decision alongside the NIW prong analysis.

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)
  • Matter of Ho

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer