NIW Bearings
dismissedDEC062021_01B52032021-12-06 · 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.

A principal research engineer proposed to continue using computer-aided engineering (CAE) analysis for engine external configuration and structural analysis, though he later shifted his stated focus to seismic/dynamic analysis of nuclear reactors and structures after changing employers.

Field: mechanical engineering · Read the decision (uscis.gov)

EB-2 threshold — addressed

Director found Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional (U.S. PhD in mechanical engineering); not disputed on appeal.

Prong 1 — national importancenot established · dispositive

“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong or that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver.”
“This represents a shift away from the original subject of the proposed endeavor”
“a visa petition may not be approved based on speculation of future eligibility or after the Petitioner or Beneficiary becomes eligible under a new set of facts.”
“it is not apparent from the record how he would allocate his time to each of these endeavors such that we can make a determination on the overall endeavor's national importance.”

AAO decision text

Prong 2 — well positionednot established

“Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we cannot conclude that he meets either the first or second prong or that he has established eligibility for a national interest waiver.”

AAO decision text

How the evidence was treated

  • recommendation letter · discounted
    “his letter offers little in resolving the discrepancy”
    AAO decision text
  • resume experience · discounted
    “the descriptions of the work performed did not reflect that the Petitioner held both positions”
    AAO decision text
  • other · discounted
    “does not directly bear upon the issue in this matter, as the Petitioner's specific titles are not mentioned in this article”
    AAO decision text

Where this case turned

  • Business plan speculative · p1 — projections without a documented basis or steps
  • Endeavor too vague · p1 — described as a job role, not a defined undertaking
  • Letters conclusory · p2 — letters praise skills in general terms without tracing specific impact
  • No progress evidence · p2 — no documented movement toward the endeavor since filing
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 decision turns significantly on a finding of material misrepresentation regarding discrepant job titles/duties between the petitioner's I-140 (NIW) and prior L-1A filings, which the AAO treated as an independent basis undermining credibility and eligibility, alongside the primary finding that the petitioner materially changed his proposed endeavor mid-proceeding (shifting from engine analysis to nuclear structure analysis), which the AAO held could not establish eligibility as of the filing date under Matter of Michelin Tire Corp.

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)
  • 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(ii)
  • INA 203(b)(2)
  • INA 291
  • Matter of Ho
  • Poursina v. USCIS

Cases in adjacent profiles

← Back to the case explorer